Dilip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

Heard Shri Tanuj Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in the School record, the date of birth of the petitioner was entered correctly recorded, to be 04.04.2003; but it is in the records of the Board that the date of birth was incorrectly recorded to be 04.04.2002. He has placed reliance upon a decision of a division bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Anu Verma and Another; reported in 2022 9 ADJ 133 DB; wherein this Court has held that the Rule of Limitation postulated in Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations has to be understood for its true purpose and not applied to every situation where correction is sought to particulars mentioned in the certificate-cum-statement of marks. He has also relied upon a decision in the case of Babu Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2010 ADJ OnLine 242; wherein it was also held that the Rule of Limitation would not apply if the mistake is in the records maintained by the Board as distinguished from a mistake in the certificate of passing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a decision in the case of State of U.P. and 2 Others Vs. Alka Singh and Another, passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 242 of 2025; wherein it was held that a student for no mistake of his own cannot be subjected to enhancement of age, only on account of the application being barred by limitation.

The learned Standing Counsel on instructions has also submitted that the mistake was in the records of the Board and not that in the records of the school, and further he does not dispute the school leaving certificate which has been appended as Annexure-1 to the affidavit, the perusal of the said school leaving certificate dated 15.04.2024 clearly indicates the correct date of birth of the petitioner to be 04.04.2003. The petitioner has also appended the transfer certificate form, of Public Inter College, Nadwasrai, Mau, wherein also the date of birth has been mentioned to be 04.04.2003. The said document is not disputed by the respondents.

In view of the aforesaid, the issue which arises for consideration before this Court is that in case the mistake is that of the Board and is not of the petitioner or in the school records, whether the embargo of three years can be imposed against such an application, since admittedly the Principal has forwarded the documents only on 03.06.2024 whereas the High School certificate was issued on 29.04.2018; and as such the period of limitation of three years has already expired.

This Court is of the considered opinion that in case there is no infirmity in the school record or the school records are not being disputed, the embargo of three years which has been postulated in the Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations, shall not be attracted. For ready reference Regulation 7 is reproduced below:-

Regulation 7, referred to above, refers to correction in the certificate of passing and evidently there is no mistake in the certificate of passing; but the mistake is in the record maintained by the Board, where the date of Birth of the petitioner has been incorrectly transcribed, whereas the school records contained the correct date of birth. This is a matter of procedure which is beyond the control of the petitioner, and in view of the aforesaid, he shall have a continuing cause of action till the records of the Board is sought to be corrected; and accordingly the said regulation would not be applicable so far as the case is concerned. And once the respondents, who themselves has issued the certificate showing the date of birth of the petitioner, they are bound to correct the clerical mistake in the record of the Board; and the petitioner cannot be saddled with the consequence, for no fault of his own.

This Court finds that there is no factual inconsistencies in relation to the date of birth of the petitioner in the various school records and the mistake has only crept in on the level of the Board and as such, the petitioner's date of birth is liable to be corrected in the certificates which has been issued by the Board.

The Rule of Limitation is always considered in the light of giving finality to an issue and not to act as a tool to deny a remedy, which may be available under law, to correct the error, which has occurred due to the inadvertence of the authorities themselves; and it is also not the case of the respondents that the correction sought to be made shall give any unwarranted benefit to the petitioner.

The Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, has held that if the remedy availed by the party who has been wronged does not smack of malafides or is not by way of dilatory tactics, the Courts must show utmost consideration to the suitor. In other words, a bonafide delay may not be itself be treated as sufficient to debar the remedy, particularly where the record exfacie shows miscarriage of justice; and as such the law of limitation which is founded on a public policy so as to limit the life span of a litigation or the legal remedy, cannot be used to defeat the rights of the parties.

The aforesaid view is also fortified by a judgement of a coordinate Bench of this court in Writ-C No. 20863 of 2015 (Akash Sharma Vs. State of U.P.); wherein this Court has also held that an authority vested with the jurisdiction to issue a certificate and to maintain record of it has inherent power to rectify the mistake, if any, that may occur in the certificate so issued, provide the mistake is genuine and the person concerned has no role attached to it.

As a matter of fact, it is the duty of the Board to ensure that the certificate issued by it are correct and in case there is a mistake on their part, the Board is under an obligation to correct the said certificate issued by it, irrespective of the limitation placed under Regulation 7 of Chapter III of the Regulations, in exercise of its inherent power; and law of limitation cannot be pressed into service by the board while exercising its inherent power, so as to defeat the right of the petitioner to get the necessary corrections in the date of birth recorded in the High School certificate.

In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 24.07.2026 is liable to be set aside; and as a result, respondents are directed to issue the corrected High School certificate to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 Weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands allowed.