SOUMYA RANJAN ACHARYA Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a student of National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 11.06.2018 under Annexure-11 rejecting his application for correction of date of birth.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was prosecuting his study at M.R. Boys' High School, Parlakhemundi as a regular student. He appeared H.S.C. Examination in the year 2010 under the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and became unsuccessful. Consequentially, he left the said school and was issued with transfer certificate (T.C.) bearing No. 1286501 dated 18.10.2010, along with Enrollment Card (E.C.) bearing No. DAM001/230/08 vide Annexures-1 and 2 respectively issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as "08.03.1994". On receipt of such certificate, the petitioner took admission at National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), which is an autonomous Institution under the Ministry of Human Resources Development (HRD) Department, Government of India, having its regional centre and accredited institutes all over India.

(3.) Mr. N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the time of admission, the petitioner had produced the transfer certificate annexed as Annexure-1 and also the enrollment card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which is annexed as Annexure-2, wherein the date of birth has been mentioned as "08.03.1994". But, when the petitioner passed the annual examination conducted by the NIOS, he was issued with provisional certificate, marks statement and migration-cum-transfer certificate, wherein the date of birth has been mentioned as "08.03.1974". It is contended that there may be some typographical error indicating the date of birth as "08.03.1974" in place of "08.03.1994". Therefore, as required under law, the petitioner applied in prescribed proforma for correction in the admission record, vide Annexure-4 series by depositing the requisites fees. Though the same was duly acknowledged, but not acted upon in spite of the several requests made by the petitioner and his father. Subsequently, in compliance of the direction given by this Court, vide order dated 27.04.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6831 of 2018, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the plea of barred by limitation as three years period prescribed for correction of date of birth was already over. It is contended that the same is purely non-application of mind. As it reveals from the application submitted for correction, the same was produced on 27.08.2012 under Annexure-4 series, which is well within the time specified. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the impugned order cannot have any justification, particularly when the same contradicts the record itself. Thereby, the petitioner seeks for quashing of letter dated 11.06.2018 in Annexure-11 and prays for correction of date of birth. It is further contended that valuable time of the petitioner was lost due to callous attitude of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 by not correcting the date of birth, which are based on record.