2024 (5) TMI 1510 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Rejection of petitioner s representation for correction of date of birth in the mark-sheet of High School Examination 2020 - HELD THAT - The petitioner was issued mark-sheet of her High School Examination 2020 and immediately she represented before the Respondent No. 5 i.e. Principal of the College and the District Inspector of Schools Prayagraj submitted his report on 15.10.2020. This Court further finds that the Hon ble Supreme Court has passed the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03 of 2020 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER whereby relaxation of the period 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 has been given for the purposes of counting the period of limitation for filing different legal proceedings therefore for the sake of arguments it is assumed that the petitioner for the first time represented before the authorities on 28.12.2022 for correction in her date of birth the said representation is also within the period of three years limitation provided under Regulation-7 of the regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. The order dated 28.2.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3 cannot be allowed to sustain - Matter is remitted to Respondent No. 3 to reconsider the matter for correction of date of birth afresh - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal issues presented in this judgment are:

• Whether the petitioner's request for correction of the date of birth in the High School Examination mark-sheet was filed within the prescribed period of limitation under Regulation-7 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
• The applicability of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.1.2022, which provided a relaxation of the limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, to the petitioner's case.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Period of Limitation for Correction of Date of Birth

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The relevant legal framework is Regulation-7 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which prescribes a limitation period of three years for filing applications for correction of date of birth in educational records.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted that the petitioner's application for correction was filed within the limitation period when considering the relaxation period provided by the Supreme Court.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner received the incorrect mark-sheet in 2020 and filed a representation for correction. The District Inspector of Schools submitted a report on 15.10.2020, supporting the petitioner's claim.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the law by considering the exclusion of the period from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022, as directed by the Supreme Court, when calculating the limitation period.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's defense of the order was noted, but the court found it insufficient in light of the Supreme Court's directive on the limitation period.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner's application was filed within the permissible period, considering the exclusion period provided by the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Applicability of Supreme Court's Order on Limitation Period

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03 of 2020 provided for the exclusion of the period from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 for the purposes of counting the limitation period for various legal proceedings.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court recognized the applicability of the Supreme Court's order to the petitioner's case, thereby extending the limitation period for her application.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the petitioner had initially represented her case on 28.12.2022, which fell within the extended limitation period.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the Supreme Court's directive to exclude the specified period from the limitation calculation, thus validating the timeliness of the petitioner's application.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's inability to counter the Supreme Court's directive led the court to favor the petitioner's stance.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner's representation was timely, given the exclusion of the specified period from the limitation calculation.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the order dated 10.01.2022...whereby relaxation of the period 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 has been given for the purposes of counting the period of limitation for filing different legal proceedings."
• Core Principles Established: The judgment reaffirms the principle that statutory limitation periods can be extended in light of extraordinary circumstances, such as those recognized by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 28.2.2024, and remitted the matter to the respondent to reconsider the correction of the date of birth, directing a fresh, reasoned order within three months.