Jagdish Kerketta v. Chhattisgarh Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No.662 of 2017 • Jagdish Kerketta S/o Shri Bisnath Kerketta, Aged About 34 Years By Caste: Uraon, R/o Village: Mudekela, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

• Chhattisgarh Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal Raipur, Through: Secretary Chhattisgarh Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, Raipur, P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Shri Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 20/04/2017 Heard.

2.

Though the petitioner has come out with a prayer for direction regarding correction of his date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate issued by the respondent-board, learned counsel for the respondent-board draws attention of this Court to order dated 26-02-2016 passed by this Court in WPC No.1612 of 2015 and batch of petitions (Anupam Kumar Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another), to submit that this Court has held that the board cannot be directed to carry out any correction/modification, except in accordance with the procedure and within limitation. He submits that the certificate was issued way back in the year 1998, whereas application for correction of date of birth has been submitted before the board in the year 2016.

3.

This Court in the case of Anupam Kumar Soni (supra), had an occasion to consider similar prayer, where the application was filed highly belated. Relying upon the various authorities and orders passed by the Supreme Court, this Court held that when the application was filed after great delay, correction is not permissible. This Court had also noted the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Secondary Education of Assam vs. Md. Sarifuz Zaman and others, (2003) 12 SCC 408, in which, the Supreme Court emphasized that the entries made in the certificates issued by the Board of Secondary Education should not be allowed to change/correct time and again, else the very sanctity and authenticity of the entries made in the certificates will loose its significance. 4.

In view of above, no relief can be granted in this petition. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate civil remedy as observed in the case of Sudhir Ram Bhagat vs. Secretary, Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal , Raipur and another, 2009 (3) CGLJ 103. 5.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivstava) Judge Tumane