1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.514/2008. Doshant Daulat Nithaware ..vs.. The Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, through its Chairman and others. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: D.D.SINHA and C.L.PANGARKAR,JJ. DATE : 19th June, 2008. 1. Heard Mr.P.A.Abhyankar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.R.S.Parsodkar, Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2. 2. The writ petition is directed against the communication dated 10-13/12/2007, issued by the Divisional Secretary, Nagpur Divisional Board, Nagpur, whereby the petitioner is informed that his application for correcting the date of birth in the Certificate dated 24/6/1994 is rejected, since the said application was submitted beyond the period of three years from the date of issuance of the Certificate. The following facts are not in 2 dispute. That the petitioner did his matriculation in the year 1994. The Certificate issued by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and High Secondary Education is dated 24/6/1994 wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 26/6/1973. The petitioner for the first time submitted application for correcting the date of birth on 9/10/2007 i.e. after more than 12 years. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned communication. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent- Board is bad in law since there is no specific rule or regulation which stipulate that the candidate has to submit the application for correcting the date of birth in the Certificate issued by Secondary School Certificate Board within a specific time and in absence of any such specific regulation or rule, the action of respondent-Board is arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law. Another contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Resolution passed by the Board, whereby it was decided to reject the application of the petitioner for correcting the date of birth, needs to be passed by the competent authority of 3 the State Government under the provisions of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965. However, the said procedure has not been complied with by the Board and therefore, the impugned communication is bad in law even on this count. 4. Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the Board, has submitted that the Certificate was issued by the Board in the year 1994 and the application was made by the petitioner for correcting the date of birth in the year 2007 and there is even otherwise inordinate delay in moving the application. It is further contended that in the year 2006, the Supreme Court in (2003)12 SCC 408 (Board of Secondary Education of Assam ..vs.. MD.Sarifuzzaman and others), has observed in para no.10 of the judgment that permitting the candidates to approach the authority at any point of time would not be proper. Authority must prescribe time within which any change in respect of date of birth or otherwise be permitted. Mr.Parchure, learned counsel, further contended that in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, the board has considered this aspect and passed the Resolution dated 1/7/2006 and prescribed the limitation of three years. It is 4 submitted that in view of the said Resolution the candidate/student is entitled to move the application for correcting the date of birth within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the Certificate. In the instant case, the application moved by the petitioner, admittedly, was much beyond the period of three years and hence action of the respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner is consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 5. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by both the parties and also considered the decision of the Apex Court. It is well settled that even if there is no time prescribed, it is always reasonable time within which the candidate concerned needs to apply for correcting the date of birth, otherwise this will create difficult situation if the candidates are permitted to move the authorities at any point of time during their life time. The Apex Court in the case of Board of Secondary Education of Assam ..vs.. Md.Sarifuzzaman and others (cited supra) in para no.10 has observed thus - “Nobody can claim a right to have an entry corrected in a certificate solemnly issued by an educational 5 institution, that too the one enjoying the status of a statutory Bord under the Act. The right of the applicant to have an error or mistake corrected is accompanied by a duty or obligation on the part of the Board to correct its record and the certificate issued by it. Not only it is a corresponding duty or obligation, it has also to be perceived as a power exercisable by the Board to correct an entry appearing in the certificate issued by it. People, institutions and government departments, etc. - all attach a very high degree of reliability, near finality, to the entries made in the certificates issued by the Board. The frequent exercise of power to correct entries in certificates and that too without any limitation on exercise of such power would render the power itself arbitrary and may result in eroding the credibility of certificates issued by the Board. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the contention that the applicants seeking correction of entries in such certificates have any such right or vested right.” 6. The observations made by the Apex court in the above referred paragraph make it clear that the resolution passed by the Board prescribing time limit of three years appears to be consistent with the law laid down by the Apex Court. The petitioner has moved the application after three years from the date on which the secondary school 6 certificate was issued by the Board and therefore, the action of the respondent-Board even on this count cannot be held to be bad in law. Consequently, the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. chute