Skip to content


Bibhudhendu Sarangi Vs. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberOriginal Jurn. Case No. 2196 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1983Ori162
ActsOrissa Secondary Education Act, 1953 - Sections 21; Orissa Secondary Education Regulations - Regulation 39
AppellantBibhudhendu Sarangi
RespondentSecretary, Board of Secondary Education and anr.
Appellant AdvocateL. Mahapatra, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.C. Mohapatra and ;K.B. Kar, Advs.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - he had teen issued an appropriate admit-card wherein his dale of birth had been indicated as 1-7-1963 (annexure 1). petitioner failed in that examination and sat at the supplementary examination of that very year......but in the certificate which was granted, his name was described as 'bibhudendu'. petitioner's date of birth is 1-7-1963, but in the certificate it was shown as 1st of july, 1960. on noticing these mistakes in april, 1982, when petitioner intended to apply for the post of airman under the indian air force, he applied to the beard for rectification of these two mistakes in the certificate, this application was tendered at the school from which the petitioner took the examination to be sent to the board. the board in its counter-affidavit has taken the stand that the application for rectification is barred by limitation to view el regulation 39 in chapter x of the board's regulations as having not been made within three years from the elate of passing of the examination. it has also.....
Judgment:

R.N. Misra, C.J.

1. petitioner took the annual matriculation examination of 1978 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education (opposite party No.1) held in the month of March of that year. He had teen issued an appropriate admit-card wherein his dale of birth had been indicated as 1-7-1963 (Annexure 1). Petitioner failed in that examination and sat at the supplementary examination of that very year. He came out successful and an appropriate certificate was granted to him in 1979, copy of which is Annexure 2, petitioner's name is Bibhudhendu but in the certificate which was granted, his name was described as 'Bibhudendu'. Petitioner's date of birth is 1-7-1963, but in the certificate it was shown as 1st of July, 1960. On noticing these mistakes in April, 1982, when Petitioner intended to apply for the post of Airman under the Indian Air Force, he applied to the Beard for rectification of these two mistakes in the certificate, This application was tendered at the school from which the petitioner took the examination to be sent to the Board. The Board in its counter-affidavit has taken the stand that the application for rectification is barred by limitation to view el Regulation 39 in Chapter X of the Board's Regulations as having not been made within three years from the elate of passing of the examination. It has also been maintained that there was really no mistake and if there be any it was on account of wrong particulars having been given.

2. From the school records which have been made available to us at the hearing as also the admit-card which had been issued by the Board to the petitioner when he had taken the annual examination, it is clear that the petitioner's date of birth was accepted as 1st of July, 1963 and net 1st of July, 1960 as shown in the certificate. There is absolutely no dispute as to how the petitioner's name should be spelt.

3. The Board is not in a position to produce the particulars which were furnished by the petitioner to it when petitioner applied to sit at the supplementary examination. In the absence of those documents, it is difficult for us to accept the stand that the Board had not any mistakes to commit and the defects, if any, were in the papers supplied by the petitioner or the school through which the petitioner came to take the examination. There can be no assumption in favour of the Board and, therefore, we must hold that the Board was at fault in recording wrong particulars as to date of birth and in describing the petitioner's name in a different way than the petitioner wanted his name to be indicated.

Mr. Mohapatra has accepted the position on the basis of the admit-card which is available on record in Annexure 1 that in the Board's records, petitioner's date of birth has been accepted as 1st of July, 1963. Similarly, petitioner had been correctly described in the admit-card. The mistakes which have crept into the certificate are, therefore, at the level of the Board. It may be pointed out that once the date of birth was entered as 1-7-1963, the first part of the Regulation 39 would not permit the Board to modify the date. So far as the limitation is concerned, the Regulation is not attracted in view of the fact that it is not a case for rectification as we have already found. We would accordingly accept the petitioner's stand and direct that the Board shall within a month from today, issue an appropriate certificate in lieu of Annexure 2 which had been issued to the petitioner, describing the petitioner's name properly and giving his date of birth as 1st of July, 1963, The writ application is allowed with casts. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees one hundred.

Patnaik, J.

I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //