Patna High CourtL.P.A/1728/2012dismissed

Ranjana Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-03-03Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah,Mr. Justice V.N. Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1728 of 2012 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5522 of 2008 =========================================================== Ranjana Kumari Wife of Sumant Kumar, Resident of Village- Thawara, P.SBeriya, Beriyarpur, District- Begusarai. .... .... Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Bihar School Examination Board, through its Secretary, Sinha Library Road, P.S- Kotwali, District- Patna.

3. Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna.

4. Head Master, Meghrai Mishri Prasad Uchya Vidyalaya, Wolipur, DistrictLakhisarai.

5. Head Master, Meghrai Mishri Prasad Uchya Vidyalaya, Wolipur, DistrictLakhisarai.

6. District Education Officer, Munger, District- Munger.

7. District Superintendent of Education, Munger, District- Munger. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr.

For the Respondents : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA) Date: 03-03-2015 This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.05.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5522 of 2008 whereunder learned Single Judge of this Court has refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground of delay as the petitioner approached this Court for correction of her date of birth in the matriculation certificate after about 20 years of its issue i.e., 24.08.1988. The application before the Bihar School Examination Board for the aforesaid correction was filed in the year 2005 i.e., after 17 years. It is submitted on behalf of the

Patna High Court LPA No.1728 of 2012 dt.03-03-2015 2/2 appellant that during the interregnum petitioner approached the District Education Officer for redressal of her grievance. The date of birth of the petitioner having been correctly recorded in the school records, there was nothing which was required to be corrected at the instance of the District Education Officer concerned.

2. In the circumstances, the plea raised on behalf of the appellant that she approached the District Education Officer for correction of her date of birth is neither here nor there. The appellant having approached the Board after about 17 years by which time the records of the Board of the concerned year 1988 having been destroyed and there was nothing on the basis of which Board could have corrected the date of birth of the appellant.

3. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, the appeal is dismissed. (V.N. Sinha, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.