Dilip Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 33462 of 2026
Dilip Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tanuj Shahi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
AFR
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Shri Tanuj Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.
2. 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.
3. 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

WRIC No. 33462 of 2026
2
limitation.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 The Secretary shall, on behalf of the Board, issue a
certificate in the prescribed form to successful candidates of having
passed the examination and to make any corrections subsequently in the
entries thereof provided that such incorrect entries had been made in the
certificate due to any inadvertent clerical error or omission or due to any
clerical error which had crept inadvertently at the level of the Board or at
the level of the institution last attended. This correction may be made by
the Secretary only when the candidate has submitted an application for
rectification of the mistake to the Principal/Manager concerned within
three years from the date of issuance of the certificate by the Board and
one copy has also been sent to the Secretary by registered post:

WRIC No. 33462 of 2026
3
Provided that any spelling mistake in the marksheet or the certificate
issued to the candidate in regard to the name of the candidate or the
name of his father or mother shall be corrected after due verification by
the Regional Secretary of the concerned Regional Office at the earliest
upon submission of an application by the candidate."
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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

WRIC No. 33462 of 2026
4
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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands
allowed .
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
November 5, 2026
Sumit K.
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad