Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's representation for correction of date of birth in the High School mark-sheet was unsustainable for having been made within the prescribed limitation period.
Analysis: The representation for correction was found to have been made promptly after the mark-sheet was issued, and the District Inspector of Schools had submitted a report in 2020. The period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 was required to be excluded while computing limitation in view of the Supreme Court's extension of limitation orders. On that basis, even treating the later representation date as the first effective claim, it fell within the three-year period prescribed for correction of date of birth under Regulation 7 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
Conclusion: The rejection order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.