Allahabad HC Orders Board To Correct Student’s High School Certificate Despite 3-Year Limit, As Undisputed School Records Showed Board’s DOB Error

The petitioner’s school records, including the school-leaving certificate and transfer certificate, recorded the date of birth as 4 April 2003.

The High School certificate issued by the Board on 29 April 2018 recorded it as 4 April 2002.

The State did not dispute the school records and accepted that the error was in the Board’s records.

The Principal forwarded the correction documents on 3 June 2024, more than three years after issuance of the certificate.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 24 July 2026 refusing correction on limitation grounds.

Regulation 7 of Chapter III permits correction of specified errors in a certificate, ordinarily on an application made within three years of its issuance.

The Court held that this limitation does not apply where the school records are correct and undisputed, and the error lies in the Board’s own records; in such a case, the Board has an obligation, grounded in its inherent power and duty to maintain accurate records, to correct a genuine error not attributable to the candidate.

Relying on N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Court noted that limitation should not defeat a remedy where the delay is bona fide and the record discloses a miscarriage of justice.

It also relied on State of U.P. v. Anu Verma, 2022 9 ADJ 133 (DB), Babu Ram v. State of U.P., 2010 ADJ OnLine 242, State of U.P. v. Alka Singh, Special Appeal (Defective) No. 242 of 2025, and Akash Sharma v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 20863 of 2015, in support of the distinction between an error in Board records and an error attributable to the candidate or school.

The Court found no inconsistency in the petitioner’s school records and noted that the State accepted both that the error originated in the Board’s records and that the school documents showed the date of birth as 4 April 2003.

Because the correction sought concerned the Board’s transcription error—not an error in the certificate attributable to the petitioner—the ordinary three-year limit in Regulation 7 did not bar the claim.

The error was beyond the petitioner’s control, and the Court found no suggestion that correction would confer an unwarranted benefit.

It therefore held that limitation could not be used to deny correction of the Board’s own mistake.

It set aside the impugned order dated 24 July 2026 and directed the respondents to issue a corrected High School certificate, preferably within four weeks of service of a certified copy of the order.

The writ petition was allowed.