BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION OF ASSAM versus MD. SARIFUZ ZAMAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1273 · Decided: 19-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,. 
BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION OF ASSAM 
v. 
MD. SARIFUZ ZAMAN AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 19, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Regulations for Conduct of Examinations by the Board of Secondary 
Examination of Assam : 
A 
B 
Regulation 8--,-Correction of date of birth-Regulation providing 
three years period for filing an application for correction-Board dee/in- C 
ing to entertain the application as it was filed beyond the period of 
limitation-High Court allowed the relief-Held, three years period pro-
vided by the Regulation is a very reasonable period-The provision is 
neither illegal nor beyond the purview of s.24 of the Act and also cannot 
be called arbitra1y or unreasonable-Applicants seeking rectification D 
within a period of three years form a class by themselves and such 
prescription has a reasonable nexus with the purpose sought to be 
achieved-No fault can be found therewith on the anvil of Article 14 of 
the Constitution-Judgment of High Court set aside-However, in view of 
the concession given on behalf of the Board, this judgment shall not have E 
any bearing on the relief allowed to the two respondents-,-Constitution of 
India, 1950-Article 14-Assam Secondary Education Act, 1961-S.24. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10250 of 
2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.2000 of the Gauh.ati High 
Court in W.A. No. 343 of 2000. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 10251 of 2003. 
P.K. Goswami, Rajiv Mehta and B. Aggarwalla for the Appellants. 
Ms. K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
12TJ 
F 
G 
H 
1274 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S_.C.R. 
A 
Leave granted in .both the SLPs. 
B 
Common questions of Jaw, in the backdrop of similar facts, arise for 
decision in these two appeals. It would suffice for our purpose to notice 
facts of one of the cases. 
One of the respondents a student having taken his education in 
Government Boys Higher Secondary . School passed the matriculation 
examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, in 
the year 1991. Thereafter, he passed higher secondary examination and 
then the B.Sc. examination in the year 1998. When he filed the writ 
C petition, he was undergoing a course of study in computers. At that point 
of time, on October 12, 1999, he moved an application to the Board 
complaining that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the school 
records as May 30, 1974, while his actual date cif birth was August 16, 
1975. The mistaken date of birth: as forwarded by the school, had crept 
D int9 the Admit Card issued by the Board. The writ-petitioner student 
pleaded that he did not realize the importance of the correct date of birth · 
being entered into the school records, and therefore, he did not also realize 
the implications thereof until he was promoted in moying the applicatio~. 
The application moved by the respondent to the Principal of the school, 
E was forwarded by the latter to the Board. The principal indicated that the 
age of the respondent was entered as 16.8.1975 in the admission register 
and other school records, but.it was by mistake that while filling the form 
of the Board examination the date of birth was wrongly entered as 
30.5.1974. The Principal described the mistake as 'derical' and 
F recommended for its correction. As the Board did not take any decision 
on the application, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court. 
The Board relied on Regulatio~ 8 of the Regulations for Conduct of 
Examinations by the Board, (hereinafter 'the Regulations' for short), 
framed in exercise of. the powers conferred by Section 24 of the Assam 
G Secondary Education Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) and 
submitted that an application moved beyond three years from the date of 
issuance of certificate by the Board was not liable to be entertained. The 
plea found favour with the High Court resulting into dismissal of the writ 
petition. A writ appeal was preferred by the respondent. The Division 
H Bench has allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learn~d Single 
rl 
. • 
BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. MD. SARIFUZ ZAMAN 
1275 
. Judge and allowed the relief sought for by the respondent by issuing a writ A 
of mandamus to the Board. Feeling aggrieved, the Board has these appeals 
by special leave. 
At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant-Board submitted 
that the Board was not interested in nullifying the relief allowed to the two B 
re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.