Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3880/2011 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3880 of 2011
=========================================================
PANSURIA
HARDIK BHIKHALAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SECRETARY
& 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DM DEVNANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JANAK RAVAL AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 28/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
Mr.D.M. Devnani, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Janak
Raval, learned AGP for the respondents. Rule. Mr.Janak Raval,
learned AGP, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the
respondents.
2. At
the request of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and
with the consent of the advocates appearing for the contesting
parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and decision today.
3. Present
petition is taken out by the petitioner seeking below mentioned
relief(s):-
“12(B)
Allow this Special Civil Application by issuing a writ of mandamus or
writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction, directing the respondent School authority to correct
the Date of birth of the petitioner in the School leaving certificate
on the basis of the Certificate of Birth showing his date of birth as
21.06.1985.”
4. The
petitioner claimed that the date of birth mentioned in the School
Leaving Certificate issued by the School Authorities is 21.06.1986
whereas actually his date of birth is 21.06.1985. In support of his
submission, the petitioner has annexed (at Page-10/A) copy of Birth
Certificate issued on 15.12.2000 which shows that the date of birth
is 21.06.1985, however, what is pertinent is that in the said
certificate, any name of the person is not mentioned. Therefore, it
is not possible to ascertain as to whether the certificate pertains
to the petitioner or not. It is true that in the column which
pertains to father’s name, the name which is mentioned is similar to
that of the petitioner’s father, however, without anything
more/further, the co-relation between the person and the certificate.
5. It
is not in dispute that the petitioner passed out from the school in
May-2002. Since then until now i.e. for almost 9 years, the
petitioner has not taken any steps to get the said so-called mistake
in the certificate, corrected.
6. The
petitioner, now after passage of almost 9 years, wants that the
so-called mistake in the School Leaving Certificate may be corrected.
It appears that the authority has declined to correct the same as
requested by the petitioner.
7. The
relief prayed for by the petitioner in present petition reveals that
after almost 9 years, the petitioner wants his date of birth, as
reflected in the School Leaving Certificate, corrected from
21.06.1986 to 21.06.1985. The petitioner seeks to rely upon documents
purporting to be his birth certificate, to support his said request.
8. Obviously,
the School Authorities would not be in a position to take any
decision with regard to the said birth certificate.
9. Furthermore,
once the petitioner has left the school and has been issued School
Leaving Certificate, then School Authorities would not be in a
position to make any correction in the certificate and/or amend the
school registers.
10. The
issue had come up for consideration before the Division Bench and by
order dated 24.06.2009 in SCA No.4423 of 2001 and other allied
matters, the Division Bench, while agreeing with the view earlier
taken by the Division Bench vide order dated 11.08.2003 in LPA No.699
of 2003, held that once a student leaves the school, correction in
school records of a student can be carried out only by a Magistrate,
First Class, having jurisdiction.
11. In
light of the said view taken by the Division Bench, present petition
does not deserve to be entertained.
12. Therefore,
Mr.Devnani learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner will approach the Magistrate, First Class, having
jurisdiction, with appropriate application. However, the petitioner’s
only concern is that the said proceedings may be expeditiously heard
and decided.
13. In
view of the aforesaid submission and request by the learned advocate
for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn so as to
enable the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate having
jurisdiction with a request for appropriate orders with regard to the
subject matter and her grievance.
14. It
is needless to state that when the appropriate application is
preferred, the learned Magistrate, considering the justification and
upon considering the need for early decision, would endeavor to hear
and decide the application as expeditiously as possible.
15. With
the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.)
rakesh/
Top