Ramesh Chandra Patra vs Board Of Secondary Education, Orissa

Biswanath Rath, J

This Appeal involves a confirming judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Berhampur involving Civil Suit No.55/2005

and thereafter the same has been confirmed by the judgment and decree of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur involving RFA

No.14 of 2007.

The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

 “1. Whether the lower appellate court after remitting the matter back to the trial court to record further evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. and after receiving

such matter, has committed an error of law in holding that the court is not in a position to decide as to what is the appellant’s correct date of birth, when the suit

was filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of mandatory injunction with a direction to the defendant-Board of Secondary Education, Orissa to grant a fresh High

School Certificate against the damaged original Board Certificate in respect of the H.S.C. Examination held in August, 1970?

Whether the lower appellate court has misdirected itself in observing in paragrpah-12 of the judgment that the suit is for mandatory injunction and for declaration

of the plaintiff’s date of birth in the High School Certificate, which apparently is an error of record and on that ground, illegally dismissed the appeal?â€​

Short background involved in the case is that the plaintiff-appellant here passed H.S.C. examination in the year 1970 through Queen of the

Misson’s High School, Berhampur as a private candidate. The plaintiff was granted original High School Certificate by the defendant, by the

School authority being authorized by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa. The said original certificate was damaged due to rain water. As a

result of which, the plaintiff submitted application for issuance of a duplicate certificate by furnishing all the particulars as required under law. He

received the certificate from the head of the queen of Missons High School, Berhampur and found several mistakes in respect of the date of birth,

name of the plaintiff, name of the father of the plaintiff and name of the School. Finding this mistake involving the certificate granted by the authority

the plaintiff addressed a letter to the authority on 29.08.2000 and 24.01.2002 requesting it for necessary correction. It is alleged that although the

defendants received said letter but did not issue corrected certificate. Hence the suit for mandatory injunction seeking direction to the defendant to

grant another fresh certificate mentioning therein the correct particulars, was filed. The defendant Board of Secondary Education, Orissa represented

through his advocate filed the written statement challenging the suit on the ground of maintainability, limitation etc. It is also submitted that the plaintiff

appeared in the Supplementary High School Certificate examination in the year 1970 with Roll No.1-1498 as a private candidate being presented

through Queen of the Misson’s High School, Berhampur and passed the examination compartmentally. The original pass certificate was issued in

favour of the plaintiff as per regulation-16 of Chapter-X of the Board’s Regulation through the head of the Institution at the relevant time. The

original certificate was issued with his name and his father’s name. It is contended that the duplicate certificate is prepared basing on the

Tabulation Register of 1970 which is prepared manually. On the premises that the Tabulation Register was prepared as per rule 9 & 25 of the

Chapter-X of the Board’s Regulation and under Rule 39 and 40 of Chapter-X of the Board’s regulation correction of name, father’s name

and date of birth subsequently is not entertainable. The defendant also pleaded that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of proper parties. It is

also contended that the head of the institution through which the Â

plaintiff appeared should have been added as a party. The defendants also raised objection on the point of limitation. On the basis of the above

pleading the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

Following the pleadings of the respective parties the trial court framed the following issues:

“ISSUES

Is the suit maintainable?

Whether the plaintiff ahs any cause of action to file the suit?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for mandatory injunction to grant fresh certificate of High School Certificate examination?

To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?â€​

To satisfy their respective cases, the plaintiff-appellant examined himself as witness as P.W.1 and exhibited the documents marked as Exts.1 to 3

whereas the defendants neither examined anybody nor produced any such document. On the basis of submissions of the rival parties and on perusal of

the material evidence as well as oral evidence involving the suit by the parties the trial court decided the issue no.3 against the plaintiff appellant

herein. As a consequence the issues 1, 2 & 4 were all decided against him.

Being aggrieved by the order the plaintiff filed appeal vide RFA No.14 of 2007. During pendency of the appeal entertaining an application under

Order 47 Rule 23 of C.P.C. the lower appellate court while allowing the application at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant remanded the particular

issue for the trial court recording evidence on such issue and also for submitting the same for consideration of the appellate authority for final hearing

of the appeal. As a consequence the trial court entering into fresh evidence on the particular issue recorded evidence and send the recorded evidence

to the lower appellate court for consideration of the lower appellate court. Entering into hearing, considering the rival contentions of the parties and

taking into account the evidence already recorded by the trial court as well as the subsequent evidence by the trial court, the lower appellate court

while allowing the suit in part dismissed the other part in as much as directing the Board authority to issue a fresh certificate to the appellant containing

all the particulars that find place in the original certificate marked as Ext.A/1 except the date of birth which must be mentioned in accordance with the

entry in the Board’s Tabulation Register for the examination held in August, 1970.

Assailing the impugned order the plaintiff brought this Appeal, which was admitted on the question of law indicated hereinabove. Advancing his

argument, Shri D.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellant referring to the documents brought through the additional evidence in the pending of

appeal in the lower appellate court submitted that for the disclosures with regard to the date of birth involving the material particular available through

additional evidence, the appellate court went wrong in rejecting the relief so far it relates to correction of date of birth in the Matriculation certificate in

the H.S.C. Board Examination. Taking this Court to the evidence subsequently gathered and the materials therein, learned counsel for the petitioner

attempted to justify his submission and thereby tried to satisfy that he has a case requiring this Court to interfere in the rejection part involving the

impugned judgment of the lower appellate court.

Shri T. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, taking this Court to the findings of the lower appellate court more

particularly in respect of acceptance of a document involving the date of birth produced by the appellant in the lower appellate court on the premises

of non-admissibility of the document contended that there is right appreciation of the issue by the lower appellate court requiring no interference in the

judgment of the lower appellate court.

Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into account the question of law framed by this Court at the time of admission of the

matter, this Court entering into the findings of the trial court, finds on issue no.3 the main issue involved therein the trial court has the clear finding that

there is no document advanced by the plaintiff to establish that the duplicate certificate issued by the authority is not much matching with the original

certificate. This Court also finds, there is clear observation by the trial court that the plaintiff failed in making such a comparison thereby establishing

his case requiring issuance of a fresh certificate. Now coming to the judgment by the lower appellate court, this Court finds, the lower appellate court

being convinced with the submission of the plaintiff therein entered into the additional evidence to give one more chance to the plaintiff appellant to

establish his case. Through the additional evidence process, this Court finds, the plaintiff brought some document and there is no dispute that the

document brought by way of additional evidence are not the document granted by the statutory authority. It is on the basis of no sanctity in the

documents brought by way of additional evidence and considering the sanctity in such document maintaining the date of birth therein, the lower

appellate court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is unable to satisfy his case regarding change in the date of birth. The lower appellate court,

therefore, considering the other aspect regarding sufficient material with regard to change in the name of the father of the plaintiff-appellant, gave

suitable direction for making necessary correction in the certificate. Considering the findings of both the courts below and taking into account the

materials available on record even through the additional evidence, this Court observes, the plaintiff in spite of repeated scope could not be able to

establish that there is wrong recording of date of birth by the Board authority or the School authority. There is no production of any certificated copy

of the original issued in favour of the petitioner, nor even a true copy was produced at any level. On his own submission the plaintiff was an Advocate

and he must have passed the Higher Secondary Examination, then completed Graduation and then the LL.B. from any statutory University and no

attempt has been made to procure such document from the Institutions. In absence of any material to compare wrong recording between the original

and the duplicate impugned therein in the suit and further for the consistent evidence of the Board authority establishing that the duplicate certificate

supplied to the petitioner was in match with record particulars retained by the authority, this Court finds, there was no scope for the authority to enter

into the arena of correction in the date of birth in the certificate.

For the observation of both the courts below, this Court answering the questions framed herein against the appellant, finds no scope to interfere in the

impugned order.

Accordingly, this RSA stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost.

………………………..