THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Manju Gupta, D/o. Biswa Nath Prasad Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Dept. Of Secondary Education And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.2932 Of 2022, WP(C) No.2184 Of 2023
Decided On : 16-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Variation in date of birth - Withholding monthly salaries - Communication was issued by Headmistress / Secretary of School withholding monthly salaries of petitioner - Such withholding was on ground that there was variation in date of birth of petitioner which would appear from HSLC Certificate – Records does not reveal that any enquiry was conducted giving petitioner any opportunity to present her case before passing impugned Speaking Order - Para 17.
Finding of the Court:
Court is of opinion that since admittedly there was no misrepresentation or suppression by petitioner while entering into service as would be evident from affidavit submitted along with Certificate of State of UP Council at time of entering into her service, issue regarding her date of birth had attained finality which cannot be re-opened now - There is an observation that petitioner was heard before passing of same, explanation given by petitioner have not been controverted - Even assuming that a hearing was afforded to petitioner that perhaps would not be sufficient as an impugned action having adverse civil consequences would have to be preceded by giving an adequate opportunity to petitioner to place her case which cannot be said to be sufficient by simply giving her a hearing at time of passing of order - Records does not reveal that any enquiry was conducted giving petitioner any opportunity to present her case before passing impugned Speaking Order - Petitioner is directed to be allowed to discharge her duties till her date of superannuation by reckoning her.
Result: Petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri NJ Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department.
2. Considering the subject matters involved in these two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner, the same were taken up altogether for disposal at the admission stage.
3. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in Vivekanada Bidyapith High School, Dhekiajuli in the district of Sonitpur (hereinafter the School). The petitioner was initially appointed in the Rashtrabhasha Bidyapith ME School, on 19.01.2018 the said ME School was amalgamated with the High School above named and thereafter the petitioner has been working in the amalgamated School. While in service, a communication was issued by the Headmistress/Secretary of the School dated 05.09.2021 withholding the monthly salaries of the petitioner from August 2021. Such withholding was on the ground that there was variation in the date of birth of the petitioner which would appear from the HSLC Certificate.
4. The aforesaid communication was the subject matter of challenge in the first writ petition being WP(C)/2932/2022 and this Court had passed an order on 06.05.2022 issuing notice of motion and had also made certain observations, which are extracted hereinbelow:
If there is any discrepancy in the date of birth recorded in the service book with that of the HSLC certificate, it is always open for the authorities to issue notice to the petitioner, draw a proceeding and pass appropriate order thereon. But it cannot be accepted under the law that merely on the allegation of discrepancy with the date of birth, the salary would be stopped.
Considering the balance of convenience and irreparable loss that the petitioner may suffer, the communication dated 05.09.2021 of the Headmistress of Vivekananda Bidyapith HS Dhekiajuli shall remain stayed until further order(s), meaning thereby, that all consequential benefits of the stoppage of salary shall have no effect under the law as regards the payment of salaries and allowances to the petitioner.
However, if the authorities are of the view that the petitioner is required to be proceeded against, liberty remains and the pendency of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the same.”
Though the impugned communication dated 05.09.2021 was stayed, the salaries were not released leading to filing of a contempt case by the petitioner. In the said contempt proceedings, a Speaking Order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Inspector of School, Sonitpur District Circle was produced whereupon the contempt proceeding was closed and thereafter, the second writ petition being WP(C)/2184/2023 has been instituted challenging the said Speaking Order dated 28.09.2022.
5. Ms. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a fact that her Matriculation Certificate issued by the Council of the State of UP records her date of birth as 06.10.1958 which was due to inadvertence. To substantiate such claim, the learned counsel has referred to a School Leaving Certificate issued by the Dhekiajuli Government Aided High School where the petitioner had left the said School when she was reading in Class-VI and as per the said Certificate, her date of birth on deduction would be 30.03.1966. It is the case of the petitioner that she had left the State of Assam and was in the State of UP from where she had passed her HSLC examination and in the Admit Card issued by the C
Shankar Lal Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 211
In exercise of extra-ordinary powers conferred by under Article 226 of Constitution of India, Court loathe in interfering with matters pertaining to change of date of birth.
The court held that the date of birth in a matriculation certificate is authoritative over an affidavit, and manipulative actions for personal gain constitute fraud.
A unilateral change in an employee's recorded date of birth, impacting pension benefits, violates natural justice principles, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Point of Law : Speaking order dated has been passed in violation of mandatory procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of 1964 Rules and Subsidiary Rule 8[c] as well as in violation of principles of natural ju....
The date of birth recorded in the HSC pass certificate should be taken as conclusive for all purposes, overriding earlier recorded dates in service records, particularly when the employee has consist....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.