IMPORTANT POINT
The admissibility of birth certificates as evidence under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act and their precedence over school records in age-related disputes were affirmed, establishing a legal standard for similar cases.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep V. Marne, J. - Appellant has filed this Appeal challenging the Decree dated 8 February 2023 passed by the District Judge-5, Sangli dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2021 and confirming the Decree dated 22 December 2020 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangli in Regular Civil Suit No. 506 of 2013. By that Decree, the Trial Court held that the appointment of Appellant (Defenant No.3) as 'Anganwadi Sevika' is illegal and has directed Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to appoint Plaintiff as 'Angandwadi Sevika'.

2. The dispute between Appellant/Defendant No.3 and Respondent/ Plaintiff is about their competing claims for appointment on the post of 'Anganwadi Sevika' for Village-Jaygavan, Taluka Kavathe-Mahankal, District-Sangli. An advertisement was issued for filling up various posts of Anganvadi Sevika, Anganwadi Madatnis and Mini-Anganvadi Sevika, which included 34 posts of Angadwadi Sevika for various villages, including the Village-Jaygavan. The advertisement prescribed the age limit of minimum 25 years and maximum 35 years as on 21 January 2011. Minimum educational qualification of Matriculation was prescribed for the post of Anganwadi Sevika. Both Plaintiff as well as Defendant No.3/Appellant applied in pursuance of the advertisement. According to the Plaintiff, list of eligible and non-eligible candidates was published, which reflected remark 'ineligible' against Appellant's name. Plaintiff claims that Defendant No. 3 was age barred on 21 January 2011 as she relied upon School Leaving Certificate which reflected her date of birth as 2 June 1975'. However, Defendant No.3 also relied upon Certificate of Birth issued by the Additional District Registrar of Births and Deaths and Block Development Officer certifying her birth date as 2 February 1976'. On the basis of Certificate of Birth issued by Block Development Officer, Defendant No. 3 was allowed to participate in the selection process and was appointed as 'Anganwadi Sevika' on 28 March 2011.

3. Plaintiff therefore instituted Regular Civil Suit No.506/2013 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangli challenging the appointment of Defendant No.3 and seeking her own appointment on the post of 'Anganwadi Sevika'. The Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit on 22 December 2020 and declared that the appointment of Defendant No.3 as 'Anganwadi Sevika' w.e.f. 28 March 2011 was illegal. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were directed to appoint Plaintiff as 'Anganwadi Sevika' within two months. Plaintiff's prayer for permanent injunction and compensation was rejected.

4. Aggrieved by the Decree of the Trial Court, Defendant No.3 filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2021 before the District Judge-5, Sangli. Regular Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2021 was also filed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenging the Decree. Plaintiff filed cross-objections in Regular Civil Appeal No.15 of 2021 claiming damages. By decree dated 8 February 2023, the first Appellate Court has dismissed both the Appeals as well as cross-objections and has confirmed the Decree of the Trial Court dated 22 December 2020. Aggrieved by the decree of the first Appellate Court, Defendant No.3 has filed the present Second Appeal.

5. The Second Appeal came to be admitted by this Court by Order dated 7 July 2023 and this Court stayed the operation, execution and implementation of Decrees of the Trial and the first Appellate Court during pendency of Appeal, further directing that services of the Appellant as 'Anganwadi Sevika' shall not be disturbed.

6. By Order dated 24 April 2024, this Court re-framed the substantial questions of law as under:

(i) Whether Certificate of Birth issued under provisions of Section 17(2) of The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is admissible in evidence under provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act without the necessity of examining the official who issued the same, especially when the same is marked as Exhibit in evidence ?

(ii) If no objection is raised at the t