IMPORTANT POINT
Claim by suppressing fact - no relief.

Headnote:(a) Service law - Date of birth - Higher Secondary Board certificate issued on 17.6.1963 showing date of birth of respondent as 20.2.1942 - Respondent appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 27.5.1965 - After 5 years, respondent applying for change of date of birth to 15.1.1948 on basis of birth certificate issued by Municipal Corporation in 1970 - Rejected by authorities - Accepting the claimed date of birth would mean respondents appointment to government service at age of 17 years 4 months - Contrary to rules - Claim rightly rejected. (Para 20)
        (2010) 3 SCC 757 - Distinguished impliedly
        (b) Service Law - Appointment - Date of birth - Incumbent, at the time of joining in 1986, not producing birth certificate allegedly issued by Municipal Corporation in 1970 - Instead producing decree of trial court declaring his date of birth as 15.1.1948 suppressing the fact that the decree was reversed by the first appellate court - Writ petition rightly rejected - Division Bench erred in reversing the same. (Para 21)
        (c) Service Law - Judicial Review - Delinquent challenging departmental proceedings - Not challenging enquiry report, nor punishment order - Not entitled to any relief. (Para 22)
       Facts of the case:
        The interesting question arising in this case is whether an employee, who got his date of birth recorded in the service book on the basis of the judgment and decree passed by a the trial Court by suppressing the fact that the same had been reversed by Additional District Judge, (lower appellate Court), can rely upon the said date of birth for the purpose of continuing in service beyond the age of superannuation?
       Finding of the Court:
        Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against judgment and order dated 6.7.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 194 and 195 of 2009 is whether the respondent, who got his date of birth recorded in the service book on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1976 passed by IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior (for short, ‘the trial

Court’) by suppressing the fact that the same had been reversed by Additional District Judge, Gwalior (lower appellate Court), can rely upon the said date of birth for the purpose of continuing in service beyond the age of superannuation.

2. The respondent passed Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh (for short, ‘the Board’). In the certificate issued by the Board on 17.6.1963, the respondent’s date of birth was recorded as 20.2.1942.

3. The respondent was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of Commissioner, Settlement and Director of Land Records, Madhya Pradesh on 27.5.1965. He worked in that office till 3.8.1966. After about five years, he made an application for change of his date of birth from 20.2.1942 to 15.1.1948, which was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 19.11.1971.

4. The respondent challenged the aforesaid decision in O.S. No.165-A/1974 and prayed that his correct date of birth be declared as 15.1.1948 and the Board be directed to incorporate the same in the Higher Secondary School Certificate. In the written statements filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Board, it was pleaded that the date of birth shown in the certificate issued in 1963 was correct and the suit is liable to be dismissed as barred by time because the same was filed much after expiry of the period of limitation.

5. The trial Court did not deal with the issue of limitation with requisite seriousness and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 13.10.1976 by relying upon the date entered in the birth certificate issued by Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. The trial Court held that the correct date of birth of the respondent is 15.1.1948 and he is entitled to get the same entered in the Higher Secondary School Certificate.

6. The State and the Board challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court in Civil Appeal No.7-A/1977. The same was allowed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 27.7.1977 on the ground that the suit filed by the respondent in 1974 was barred by time. The second appeal and the special leave petition filed by the respondent were dismissed by the High Court and this Court respectively vide orders dated 3.4.2006 and 31.7.2006. The application filed by the respondent for review of order dated 31.7.2006 was also dismissed by this Court.

7. After reversal of the decree passed in his favour by the trial Court, the respondent was appointed as Personal Assistant in the services of appellant No.1. At the time of preparation of the service book, the respondent produced copy of the judgment of the trial Court and got his date of birth recorded as 15.1.1948. After some time, the Registrar of the appellants called upon the respondent to produce the original Higher Secondary School Certificate. However, instead of doing so the respondent submitted reply dated 30.7.1999 and claimed that the date of birth recorded in the service book, i.e., 15.1.1948 is the correct date of birth. The management of appellant No.1 rejected the respondent’s reply and retired him from service vide order dated 28.2.2002.

8. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.1822/2001 for issue of a mandamus to the appellants to promote him to the post of Deputy Director and refund Rs.47,411/-. After passing of order dated 28.2.2002, the respondent amended the writ petition and prayed for quashing of his retirement. He pleaded that the date of birth recorded in the service book, i.e., 15.1.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 142

IMPORTANT POINT Claim by suppressing fact - no relief.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Claim by suppressing fact - no relief.