Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82858-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 242 of 2025 Appellant :- State of UP and 2 others Respondent :- Alka Singh and another Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C., Rama Nand Pandey (A.C.S.C.) Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar Upadhyay, Dilip Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - C No. 32172 of 2024, wherein the writ petition, filed by the respondent seeking quashing of the order dated 18.05.2024, has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to issue a fresh certificate-cum-marksheet to the respondent after correcting her date of birth as 10.10.2003 in place of 01.12.1998 within a period of six weeks. 2. The petition was filed by the respondent aggrieved of the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by the appellants whereby the application made seeking correction in the marksheet-cum-high school certificate was rejected. Learned Single Judge, on finding that the date of birth of the petitioner, since the very beginning, was recorded as 10.10.2003 at all the relevant places and record, i.e., birth certificate issued by the Registrar, the school leaving certificate issued by the school, the chart forwarded by the school to the Board for the purposes of issuing of admit card to appear in the board examination, the class-IX pre-registration check-list issued by the Board and the admit card issued by the Board in the year 2015, came to the conclusion that there was no mistake on part of the respondent or the institution where the respondent was studied and it was the Board, who was at fault by making incorrect date of birth in the documents of the respondent and consequently, allowed the writ petition as noticed hereinbefore. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants made vehement submissions that the application was ex facie barred by limitation as provided under Regulation 7 Chapter III of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and therefore, there was no illegality committed by the appellants. 4. This Court made a pointed query to the counsel regarding finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, wherein the respondent had produced all the documents correctly and that the mistake was that of the Board only, to which learned counsel fairly conceded that mistake was committed at the end of the Board and not by the student and/or the institution where the student had studied. 5. In the circumstances of the case, wherein the girl child for no mistake of hers, her age is sought to be enhanced by five years on account of mistake of the appellants, only on account of the application being barred by limitation, in a present case, where the relief has been granted by learned Single Judge, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. 6. Consequently, the appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Mukesh Pal (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad