Biren Vaishnav JUDGMENT
Biren Vaishnav, J.
1. Rule. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 3 and Mr. Samir Khan, learned advocate for the respondent no. 4 waive service of notice of Rule.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents no. 3 & 4 to delete the name of the petitioner from all the records of respondent no. 5 maintained in their school and office including School Leaving Certificate of respondent no. 5.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had married one Fatima in the year 1999 and has four children out of the wedlock. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 6 delivered a male child in the year 2002 at Abhishek Hospital, Ankleshwar. The municipality at that point of time issued relevant birth certificate and in the column of name of the father of respondent no. 5 the name of the petitioner was mentioned. Aggrieved by the entry of his name as the father of respondent no. 5 in the birth certificate issued by the municipality, he requested that since he had never married respondent no. 6, his name as father of respondent no. 5 be deleted. Such a request was rejected by the competent authority. The petitioner therefore filed a petition before this court being Special Civil Application No. 3598 of 2014. This Court vide order dated 11.08.2016 allowed the petition and held as under:
"5. I have heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. As stated hereinabove, though served, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have chosen not to appear before this Court.
6. I have considered the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 as well as Gujarat Births and Deaths Registration Rules, 2004. I have also perused the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2. Considering the provisions of law, I am of the opinion that the respondent No. 2 has committed an error in passing the impugned order. Prima facie, it appears that the respondent No. 2 has not undertaken any enquiry and has passed the impugned order. Hence, the present petition requires consideration.
7. In the result, the present petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 18.2.2014 passed by the Registrar under the Births and Deaths Act and Chief Officer of Ankleshwar Municipality respondent No. 2 herein is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner in the month of November, 2013 afresh, after following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 as well as Gujarat Births and Deaths Registration Rule, 2004, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the above extent."
3.1. According to the directions issued by this Court, a fresh certificate of birth qua respondent no. 5 was issued on 16.01.2017 by which the petitioner's name as father was deleted.
3.2. Based on the above, the petitioner made an application to the respondent no. 4 school to correct the school records and delete the name of the petitioner as father of respondent no. 5. It appears that the District Primary Education Officer, Bharuch at the relevant time opined that since respondent no. 5 was in the secondary Section, the same could not be done by the District Primary Education Officer. On a specific request made, the same was rejected on the ground that since respondent no. 5 had left the school, the request for correction of records in the school could not be done.
4. Mr. M.M. Saiyed, learned advocate for the petitioner would assail the order of refusing to delete the name of the petitioner from the records of respondent no. 4 on the ground of respondent no. 5 no more studying in the school. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 25312 of 2006 wherein this Court after considering the provisions of Regulation 12-A(6) of the Board has held that such a regulation would not prevent the school from correcting the records on the basis that the birth certificate now in fact does not bear the name of the petitioner as the father of respondent no. 5 pursuant to the directions of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3598 of 2014.
5. Mr. Samir Khan, learned advocate for the respondent no. 4 school has invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the school and contended that the petition is not maintainable. There is no right of the petitioner to seek correction in School Leaving Certificate once the ward has left the school. He submitted that because of the non-joinder of the school where the respondent no. 5 was studying last also, the petition would not be maintainable.
6. Mr. Jayneel Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Thakore Nilesh Shishirbhai vs. Gujarat Secondary Education Board and Others [MANU/GJ/7120/2007 : 2007(3) GLR 2276] and also in the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 13887 of 2014. He submitted that in both these decisions this Court has held that the petitioner should approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the records of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's case deserves consideration. This Court vide order dated 11.08.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3598 of 2014 had directed to delete the name of the petitioner as father of respondent no. 5 in the birth certificate of respondent no. 5 pursuant to which a fresh birth certificate was issued in favour of respondent no. 5. This Court in the said order had categorically relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Mulla Faizal @ Fazilabanu Suleman Ibrahim vs. State of Gujarat and others [MANU/GJ/1098/2000 : 2000(2) GLH 1] wherein it is held that the authorities under the provisions of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with Rule 12 of the Gujarat Births and Deaths Registration Rules, 2004 are duty bound in law to make necessary inquiries before making changes in the birth certificate and in absence of such inquiry the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the birth certificate is bad. Accordingly, the municipality altered its record and issued a fresh certificate on 16.01.2017 by which the petitioner's name was deleted.
8. Further in the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 25312 of 2006, on the point of Regulation 12-A(6) preventing the school from changing the name once the student has left the school, this court has specifically opined that Regulation 12-A(6) is meant for curbing malpractice and preventing unscrupulous persons from obtaining advantage. The Court has held that for genuine and bonafide lapses, the same cannot be thrown out on the ground of technicalities.
9. In the facts of the present case, it is evident that this is not a case of malpractice or malafide. This Court vide order dated 11.08.2016 has already permitted the petitioner to have his name deleted from the birth certificate of respondent no. 5 and therefore based on the same, the petitioner deserves to have his name deleted from the records of the school where the respondent no. 5 was studying. Merely on the ground that the ward has left the school, the authorities cannot reject the request of the petitioner.
10. In the above view of the matter, respondents no. 3 & 4 are directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the records of respondent no. 5 including the School Leaving Certificate issued by the school. Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.