Full Judgment
1. The petitioner Radhey Shyam has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for an order, direction or a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letters dated April 24, 1989 and April 26, 1989 (Annexures Nos. 4 and 5 respectively).
2. The petitioner appeared in High School examination of the U. P. Intermediate Board of Education, Allahabad in the year 1976 from Dayanand Inter College, Gorakh-pur. In this application form, he had shown his date of birth as 1st Febr., 1962. He received his High School Certificate in the month of October 1979 wherein his date of birth was incorrectly shown as 6-6-1960 instead of 1st Febr., 1962. He immediately moved an application through the Principal of the College in accordance with the rules framed by the Education Board for rectification of his date of birth in the High School Certificate. The Principal of the College sent a report on 7-6-1980 to respondent No. 1 requesting to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the High School Certificate along with the cases of 13 other tudents whose date of birth had also been wrongly recorded in their Certificates. After a lapse of about 2 years the respondent No. 1 without looking into the report and other material sent by the Principal returned all the applications videorder dated 30-4-82 which was despatched on 26-5-82 with a direction for a fresh report. That too was complied with by the principal who sent his report on 2-2-1984. By its letter dated 30-10-85 (Annexure No. 7) ther respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that because his application was received beyond two years of the despatch of the High School Certificate, it cannot be considered. by its another order dated 21-8-1980, the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that it had no authority to consider the cases of correction of date of birth in cases of Government servants. Thus the application of the petitioner for correcting the mistake occurred in his High School Certificate was finally rejected by respondent No. 1 and his High School certificate was returned.
3. It is an uncontroverted fact that the petitioner appeared in High School examination in the year 1976. It was after a lapse of the period of 3 years that he received his High School Certificate in the month of October 1979. In the cerificate, according to the petitioner, his date of birth was incorrectly shown as 6-6-1960 instead of 1-2-1962. He applied for correction of his date of birth by an application moved through the principal of the college which was duly forwarded by him to respondent No. 1 by his report dated 7-6-1980. (Annexure No. 4) The application was thus moved within about 8 months of the receipt of the High School Certificate by the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 took about 3 years to send a reply to the principal of the College calling for a fresh report from him. As has been said earlier. The fresh report was called by the respondent No. 1 from the principal of the college by a letter dated 30-4-1982 which was despatched from the office of respondent No. 1 on 26-5-82. It shows negligence and laches on the part of respondent No. 1 itself. The petitioner applied for correction of the mistake in the High School Certificate regarding his age within a period of limitation. He cannot be penalised on account of delay either on the part of the principal of the College or on the part of respondent No. 1 itself. The default committed by the principal cannot recoil on the petitioner. The respondent No. I also cannot takeadvantage of delay on its own part. Moreover, the plea of limitation cannot be taken by the respondent No. I in a case where there is a mistake on its own part.
4. In the case of Jugendra Singh v. Secretary Board of High School and Intermediate Education, 1987 All. Civil Journal page 35, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while holding that there can be no time limit for correcting one's own mistake has held :--
'Even the rule of limitation the expiry of which confers benefit on others is not construed so strictly. Here no right accrued to any one by lapse of two years. Except that petitioner by mistake in office of Board became older by four years. More over, can there be any time limit for correcting one's own mistake. One can understand rejection of such application of a person claiming correction in his date of birth because it was erroneously recorded in the form which crept into the certificate. But not where the mistake is not of the candidate but of the Board itself. The least that could be expected of Board in such matters is to rectify the errors the moment it is pointed out. And that is why the approach in offices should be helping and co-operative than frustrating and avoiding.'
5. In this case also, the facts are similar. There is inordinate and inexplicable delay on the part of respondent No. 1 in dealing with the matter. The prayer of the petitioner for rectifying the date of birth wrongly recorded by respondent No. 1 in his High School Certificate cannot be rejected on the plea of limitation.
6. For the reasons given above, the petition is finally disposed of and is allowed. The impugned letters dated 30-10-85 (Annexure 7) and 21-8-86 (Annexure 8) issued by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner are hereby quashed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the application of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the High School Certificate within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to him.
7. Petition allowed.