R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) HOW a little of helping attitude in the office of Board of High School would have saved petitioner from the agony of approaching this court is demonstrated by this petition.
(2.) HIGH School certificate for 1978 examination was received in the college from which petitioner had appeared in 1983. In it his date of birth was shown as 1st December 1959. He immediately contacted the principal as his correct date of birth was 1st December 1963. He was directed to deposit the certificate as according to rules it had to be sent by the college to the Board for correction. The direction was complied as is clear from the certificate issued by the principal in November, 1983, copy of which has been filed as Annex. 1 to writ petition, certifying that HIGH School certificate of petitioner had been sent to Board for correction. According to petitioner he every now and then contacted the principal and he was informed that correspondence with Board was going on. In 1985 and 1986 the principal again issued letters copies of which have been filed as Annex. 2 and 3 which show that papers for correction of date of birth were sent. But when petitioner approached the Board he was informed that no such request from principal of the college has been received. Consequently he approached the college again and after search in office it transpired that the letters were lying in office. Only comments and recommendation of District Inspector of Schools had been obtained. It is averred that although principal handed over the papers to petitioner in July 1986 to approach the Board, but he, to cover up delay on his part despite petitioner's request, dated it October, 1985. That the principal did not act properly and in a straight forward manner is apparent as he having given a certificate in June, 1986 that papers for correction of birth have already been sent could not have returned the original in October 1985 to be presented before Board. Any way according to petitioner his running from pillar to post after this in the office of Board did not yield any result till he met the Additional Director of Education who after being apprised of facts referred the matter to certificate section, which after reminders from petitioner and even a letter from personal secretary to the Union Minister of Human Resource, resulted in the impugned letter informing him in connection with letter dated 17th July 1986 that the Board was unable to examine those cases for correction of age in HIGH School certificate which were received after two years from the date of their issue. And the order purports to have been issued by the Assistant Secretary of Board. Rules are made for facility of working in the offices and not to prove a pretext for shirking the responsibility. The letter shows utter lack of understanding and disinclination to help those who come to the office from hundred of miles for such petty redress. The assistant in the office instead of examining the papers and putting a note which of course would have involved some labour found an easy escape that the application was received after two years. And the Assistant Secretary instead of applying his own mind appears to have succumbed to it by affixing his seal, presumably without even going through the papers. How else can the inaction of opposite parties be explained. The application for correction forwarded by the principal contained the admission form for Junior High School, the certificate of having passed it, the form filed by petitioner in 1978, affidavit of petitioner, recommendation of Inspector of Schools. In all the relevant papers age of petitioner is entered as December 1963. To decide whether the claim of petitioner was correct or not these papers had to be examined. That could of course be avoided only in the manner it has been done. Not only that no reasonable person could have come to conclusion in the circumstances that the application for correction was belated. The High School certificate was sent by Board after five years. Probably because no time limit is fixed. It was received in the college in September, 1983. The petitioner deposited it in the same month with the principal. In November 1983 the principal issued a certificate that it has been sent to Board. Another certificate dt. 26th August 1985 also shows that the certificate had been sent for correction. Therefore, petitioner did whatever was possible on his part to get the corrections made immediately. He was informed also in November 1983, August 1985 and June 1986 that papers have been sent. The first was immediate. The second was well within time. If the principal committed the default it could not recoil on petitioner. Even the rule of limitation the expiry of which confers benefit on others is not construed so strictly. Here no right accrued to anyone by lapse of two years. Except that petitioner by mistake in office of Board became older by four years. Moreover, can there be any time limit for correcting one's own mistake. One can understand rejection of such application of a person claiming correction in his date of birth because it was erroneously recorded in the form which crept into the certificate. But not where the mistake is not of the candidate but of the Board itself. The least that could be expected of Board in such matters is to rectify the errors the moment it is pointed out. And that is why the approach in offices should be helping and cooperative than frustrating and avoiding. For the reasons stated above the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned letter dated 21st August 1986 issued from Secretary Board is quashed. He is further directed to decide the application for correction within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced. The petitioner further shall be entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rs 1,000/-. Petition allowed.;