Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Letters Patent Appeal No. 91 of 1989

Judges

G.G Sohani, C.J
G.C Bharuka, J.

Acts

1935.(iii) Rule 57 of the Patna University Syndicate Rules (Annexure 5
rule 57 of the Rules (Annexure 5). No provision
ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Summary of Opinion — Letters Patent Appeal (G.G. Sohani, C.J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a judgment dated 6 November 1989 of a learned single Judge in C.W.J.C No. 6279 of 1989. The writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 in the appeal) is a member of the Superior Judicial Service of Bihar who passed the matriculation examination in 1947. The matriculation certificate issued by the appellant University recorded his date of birth as 12 January 1932, which would make his date of superannuation 11 January 1990.

The petitioner represented to the University that the matriculation certificate incorrectly recorded his date of birth and that his correct date of birth was 12 January 1935 as per the school register. Rule 57 of the Patna University Syndicate Rules provides that the age certified by the school Headmaster in the matriculation application is accepted for University records and no subsequent change is permitted.

The Controller of Examination informed the petitioner that under the rules the University accepts the Headmaster's certified age and would not permit subsequent change. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 13 July 1989 against the University, the Controller of Examinations and the school Principal, seeking correction of the matriculation certificate to show date of birth as 12 January 1935.

At the single Judge stage, an extract of the school's admission register (Annexure 3) was produced by the school's head clerk showing the petitioner admitted to Class V on 12 January 1940 with date of birth 12 January 1935 (implying admission at age 5). The learned single Judge accepted the school record over the Headmaster's certificate, directed the University to issue a corrected matriculation certificate showing date of birth as 12 January 1935, and ordered that the corrected certificate should form the basis of the petitioner's date of birth for all purposes and that concerned authorities should correct their records.

The University filed this Letters Patent Appeal challenging that judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, under Rule 57 of the Patna University Syndicate Rules, the University had a duty or jurisdiction to adjudicate and correct a candidate's date of birth after issuing a matriculation certificate based on the Headmaster's certification.
Whether the learned single Judge was correct to treat the extract of the school's admission register (produced by the head clerk) as sufficient proof to overturn the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate.
Whether the learned single Judge erred in issuing a general direction that the corrected matriculation certificate should be treated as definitive for all purposes and in directing all concerned departments and authorities (who were not parties to the petition) to correct their records.

Arguments of the Parties

University's Arguments (as advanced by Shri Mahto, Advocate-General)

The learned single Judge erred in issuing directions binding the State Government and the High Court, who were not parties to the writ petition; the University could not issue directions affecting non-impleaded parties.
Rule 57 required the University to accept the age certified by the Headmaster in the matriculation application; the University had no duty to adjudicate the correctness of the date of birth and had acted according to the Syndicate rule in issuing the matriculation certificate.
The extract of the school register (Annexure 3) relied upon by the single Judge was manifestly unreliable (e.g., it implied admission to Class V at age 5) and had not been proved adequately; earlier documents submitted with the matriculation application (including Annexure A and Annexure A/1) showed the Headmaster-certified DOB as 12 January 1932 and the single Judge failed to consider those documents.
General direction to all authorities to correct their records was impermissible where those authorities were not parties to the proceedings.

Petitioner's Arguments (as advanced by Shri Basudeo Prasad)

The learned single Judge properly relied on the extract of the school admission register (Annexure 3) and was justified in directing the University to issue a corrected matriculation certificate showing DOB as 12 January 1935.
The general direction that the fresh matriculation certificate should form the basis of the petitioner's date of birth wherever it becomes an issue was given to avoid multiplicity of proceedings (although counsel accepted that such a direction was not strictly necessary).
In reply to the University's procedural objections, petitioner contended that the appeal was not presented by an authorised person and was not accompanied by a typed copy of the judgment as required by the Court's rules, and argued that these defects warranted dismissal of the appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1988 Supp SCC 604 : A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1796)	The scholar's/admission register entry has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who supplied the date is examined; an entry founded on information from parents or a person with special knowledge may have evidentiary value, but an entry by a stranger or someone without special means of knowledge does not. Mere proof of a document's existence does not prove the correctness of all its contents.	The Court relied on these observations to hold that mere production of the school register (Annexure 3) by the head clerk was insufficient to prove the correctness of the date of birth and therefore insufficient to justify directing the University to alter its matriculation record.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the matter by first identifying the legal framework: Rule 57 of the Patna University Syndicate Rules required the University to accept the age certified by the Headmaster in the matriculation application and expressly provided that no subsequent change would be permitted. The Court observed that no rule or statutory provision required the University to conduct an inquiry into the correct date of birth of a candidate before accepting the Headmaster's certification.

Because the matriculation certificate was issued on the basis of the Headmaster's certified age in the application (Annexure A) and because rule 57 governed the University's conduct, the University could not be faulted for entering the certified age in its records. The University, as a statutory authority, is subject to writ jurisdiction but can be directed only to do what the law requires; absent evidence that it acted illegally or arbitrarily, its action cannot be set aside.

The Court held that the petitioner's remedy, if the Headmaster's certificate was alleged to be inconsistent with the school record, lay elsewhere: the petitioner could have persuaded his employer (the State) to act on other reliable evidence or, if necessary, proceeded against the employer or other authorities to prove the true date of birth by adducing reliable evidence. The University was not the appropriate forum to adjudicate a dispute over the correctness of a date of birth and to re-evaluate evidence in a quasi-declaratory fashion.

On the evidentiary question, the Court applied the principles articulated in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit and concluded that mere production of the school's admission register (Annexure 3) by the school's head clerk did not amount to proof of the correctness of the date of birth stated therein. The Court emphasized that the register's entry had no independent evidentiary value unless the maker of the entry or a person who supplied the information was examined; thus, the single Judge erred in treating Annexure 3 as sufficient proof to overwrite the Headmaster's certificate.

The Court further reasoned that the single Judge's general direction that the corrected matriculation certificate should serve as the basis for the petitioner's date of birth "wherever and whenever" his age became an issue was impermissible because those affected (e.g., the State Government and the High Court) were not parties to the petition; the writ petition against the University alone could not be converted into a declaratory suit affecting non-impleaded parties.

Finally, the Court dealt with procedural objections to the appeal's presentation (alleged improper presentation and absence of a typed copy of the judgment). It found that the appeal had been presented by a lawyer authorised in the vakalatnama and accompanied by a photostat copy of the judgment; the irregularities did not justify dismissal of the appeal.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal is allowed; the judgment of 6 November 1989 of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition under Article 226 filed by the petitioner against the University is DISMISSED. No order as to costs was made.

Implications and direct effects:

The direction issued by the single Judge requiring the University to alter the matriculation certificate and directing all concerned departments and authorities to correct their records is quashed.
The University was not obliged under Rule 57 to conduct further inquiry into the correctness of the date of birth certified by the Headmaster and could not be directed, on the basis of the school register produced by a clerk, to change its record.
The decision underscores that a writ petition against the University alone cannot be converted into a proceeding that declares rights of non-parties; authorities not impleaded should not be bound by such directions.
No broader legal precedent was purportedly established by the Court beyond applying existing rules (Rule 57) and the cited Supreme Court authority on evidentiary value of school records; the direct legal consequence is limited to the parties in this case (the single Judge's order was set aside and the petition dismissed).

Show full summary ...

Patna University And Another v. Md. Quamarul Hoda And Another

G.G Sohani, C.J:— This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated the 6th November, 1989, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C No. 6279 of 1989. The material facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows:—

(i) The writ petitioner (respondent no. 1 in this appeal) is a member of the Superior Judicial Service in the State of Bihar. He passed the matriculation examination in the year 1947 and his date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate, issued by the appellant University, is the 12th January, 1932. Accordingly, the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation on 11th January, 1990.

(ii) The petitioner did not approach the High Court or the State Government for correction of his date of birth in the service record but he made a representation to the appellant University and contended that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the matriculation certificate and that instead of 12th January, 1932, the date of birth should have been entered as 12th January, 1935.

(iii) Rule 57 of the Patna University Syndicate Rules (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) provides as follows:

“The age of a student based on the School records as certified by the Headmaster of the School in the matriculation application form is accepted as the age for entry in the University record and no subsequent change will be permitted.”

2. In the matriculation application form submitted by the petitioner the Headmaster had certified that the petitioner was born on 12th January, 1932. It was on the basis of that certificate that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate issued by the appellant University was 12.1.1932 Respondent no. 2, Controller of Examination, of the appellant University, therefore, intimated to the petitioner on 20th June, 1989, vide letter no. 5430.Exam. (Annexure 1 to the write petition) as follows:

“With reference to your application dated 9.2.89 on the above subject, I am to inform you that under rules the date of birth on the basis of the examination application form duly certified by the Headmaster is accepted as the age for entry of the University record and no subsequent change will be permitted. Your age as certified by the Headmaster in the examination application form is 12th January, 1932.”

(iv) The petitioner thereupon filed a petition before this Court on 13th July, 1989, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impleading the University, the Controller of Examination and the Principal of the Gandhi Multipurpose School, Nawadah. The petitioner contended that his date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate was incorrect, that the date of birth recorded in the school register was 12th Juuary 1935, and that the appellant University be, therefore, directed to correct the date of birth as entered in the matriculation certificate and issue a fresh matriculation certificate to the petitioner. The petition was resisted by the appellant University, inter alia on the ground that the age of the petitioner, as certified by the Headmaster of the school in the matriculation application form, was enered in the matriculation certificate issued to the petitioner on 12th January, 1949, and that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief prayed for.

(v) During the course of hearing before the learned single Judge an affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 3, the Principal of the school, by the head clerk of the school, that Annexure 3 was the extract of the admission register of the school, which was produced before the Court, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 12th January, 1935. In Annexure ‘3’, purporting to be a true extrtact of the admission register of the school, it has been shown that the petitioner was admitted to Class V of the school on 12th January, 1940, and that his date of birth was 12th January, 1935. Thus, according to Annexure ‘3’, the petitioner was admitted to Class V of the school at the age of 5 years. The learned single Judge held that this school record should prevail over the certificate given by the then Headmaster of the school to the appellant University and that the claim of the petitioner for correcting the matriculation certificate was completely justified. The learned single Judge, therefore, directed the appellant University to issue a fresh matriculation certificate containing’ the corrected date of birth as 12th January, 1935. The learned single Judge further observed as follows:

“… This corrected certificate will now form the basis of the dare of birth of the petitioner wherever and whenever his age becomes an issue for any purpose whatsoever and all concerned departments, officers and authorities should correct the records relating to the petitioner's date of birth…”

3. Aggrieved by this judgment the University has filed this appeal.

4. Shri Mahto, learned Advocate-General, appearing for the University contended that while issuing the aforesaid direction the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that the State Government and the High Court were not parties to the writ petition, and that no direction should have been issued binding these parties when they were not impleaded by the petitioner. It was also contended that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that in accordance with the rules of the Syndicate the University had issued the matriculation certificate recording that age which was certified by the Headmaster of the school in the application form submitted by the petitioner at the time of matriculation examination, that no duty was cast on the University to adjudicate the question regarding correct date of birth of the petitioner and that the University, therefore, could not be held to have failed to do its duty according to law. It was further contended that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that the extract of the school register (Annexure 3) relied upon by the learned single Judge was ex facie unreliable because howsoever intelligent the petitioner might have been, he could not have been admitted in Class V of the school at the of 5 years only. It was contended that the admission register of the school, which the petitioner claimed to have attended prior to his admission to the Nawadah school was not produced. Our attention was invited to the application form (Annexure A) submitted by the petitioner while appearing at the matriculation examination, the particulars filled in by him at the time of examination and Annexure A/1, the photostat copy of the list of candidates appearing at the matriculation examination in the year 1947 furnished by the Headmaster of the school along with the application forms of the candidates, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was shown to be 12th January, 1932. It was urged that the learned single Judge did not even refer to all these documents on the basis of which the appellant University had entered the date of birth in the matriculation certificate issued to, the petitioner on 12th January, 1949, and that in any event general direction could not have been issued to all the authorities, who were not impleaded in the writ petition, to correct their records relating to the petitioner's date of birth.

5. In reply, Shri Basudeo Prasad, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent, contended that the learned single Judge was justified in relying on the extract of the school register and that he had not committed any error in directing the University to issue a fresh matriculation certificate. As regards the general direction given by the learned single Judge that the age recorded in the fresh matriculation certificate, to be issued by the University in accordance with the direction of this Court, should hereafter form the basis of the date of birth of the petitioner wherever and whenever his age was in question, learned counsel contended that direction was not necessary, but it was stated that, that direction was given by the learned single Judge only with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It was also contended that the appeal was not presented by the authorised person, that it was not accompanied by a typed copy of the judgment as required by the rules of this Court and that the appeal, therefore, deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. The appellant being a statutory authority would no doubt be amenable to writ jurisdiction but it can be directed to do only that which it is required to do according to the provisions of law. Any action by the appellant University would be also liable to be struck down, if it is shown that the appellant University has acted contrary to the provisions of law or arbitrarily. In the instant case, no provision of law or rule was brought to our notice which required the University to adjudicate after holding an enquiry into the question of date of birth of a candidate. The date of birth entered in the matriculation certificate issued by the appellant University to the petitioner on 12th January, 1949, was on the basis of the age as certified by the Headmaster of the school in the matriculation application form (Annexure ‘A’) submitted by the petitioner. This was in accordance with rule 57 of the Rules (Annexure 5). No provision of law or any rule was brought to our notice which casts a duty on the appellant University to make any further enquiry before accepting the age as certified by the Headmaster in the matriculation application form as the age for entry in the University record. The appellant University cannot, therefore, be held to have acted illegally or arbitrarily. The learned single Judge has held that the appellant was bound to correct the entry regarding the date of birth in the matriculation certificate issued to the petitioner in view of the representation made to it by the petitioner about 35 years after the issue of the certificate and that on the basis of the school record as evidenced by the extract (Annexure 3) produced before the learned single Judge, the appellant-University could be directed to issue a fresh certificate. The learned single judge, with respect, failed to appreciate that all that was laid down by the relevant rule 57 was that the appellant was required to accept the age for entry in the University record which was certified by the Headmaster of the school. If, according to the petitioner, the certificate issued by the Headmaster (Annexure ‘A’) was not based on the school record, then the petitioner could have persuaded his employer the State not to act on the entry regarding his age as recorded in the matriculation certificate but to act on other reliable evidence and if the authorities had refused to accede to that request, he could have sought appropriate relief against them by proving his date of birth by adducing reliable evidence in that behalf. The University was not the proper forum to adjudicate this dispute. Moreover, assuming that the University had the jurisdiction to enquire into the correct date of birth, it could not be directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner by giving a finding in that behalf merely on the basis of production of Annexure ‘3’. Mere production of the school record by the bead clerk of the school cannot be held to be sufficient’ to prove the correct date of birth. In this connection the following observations of the Supreme Court in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1988 Supp SCC 604 : A.I.R 1988 Supreme Court 1796 at page 1806) are pertinent:—

“……. The date of birth mentioned in the scholar's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. If entry in the scholar's register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by the parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of tic date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value. Merely because the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Mere proof of the documents Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the con tents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents……”

7. The learned single Judge, in my opinion, erred in holding that mere production of school record was proof of the correctness of the date of birth stated in Annexure 3. Even assuming that the petitioner was a precocious child, who could have been admitted to Class V at the age of 5 years, as stated in Annexure ‘3’, there was no material whatsoevsr on record to prove the contents of Annexure ‘3’. In any event, the appellant University could not have been directed to correct its record and to issue a fresh matriculation certificate to the petitioner on the basis of Annexure ‘3’. Such a direction cannot be sustained in law. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner against the appellant University cannot be converted into a suit for declaration where a finding regarding the date of birth of the petitioner can be given in the absence of the parties which would be affected by that finding. The proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution commenced by the petitioner against the University alone were, in my opinion, misconceived. As regards the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent that the appeal was not properly presented, it has come on record that the appeal was presented by a lawyer who had signed the ‘Vakalatnama’ along with his senior whose name appears in the ‘Vakalatnama’. The defect, if any, is not fatal. The other defect, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, was that a typed copy of the judgment was not filed along with the appeal. I find from the record that the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a photostat copy of the judgment. According to the rules of the Court, a letters patent appeal should be accompanied by a typed copy of the judgment. The irregularities pointed out on behalf of the respondent in presentation of the appeal are not, in my opinion, sufficient to justify dismissal of the appeal on that ground.

8. For all these reasons the appeal is allowed, the judgment dated 6th November, 1989, passed by the learned single Judge, is set aside and the respondents writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is dismissed. No order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.

G.C Bharuka, J.:— I agree.

Patna University And Another v. Md. Quamarul Hoda And Another

Summary of Opinion — Letters Patent Appeal (G.G. Sohani, C.J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

University's Arguments (as advanced by Shri Mahto, Advocate-General)

Petitioner's Arguments (as advanced by Shri Basudeo Prasad)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Patna University And Another v. Md. Quamarul Hoda And Another

Comments