Back
2013 Supreme(Ori) 418
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
M.M. Das, J.
THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (M.D.) AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
SRI ANUP KUMAR PANDA AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Regular Second Appeal No. 140 of 2010
Decided On : 05-09-2013
A.K. Rath, D. Mohanty, R.R. Sahoo, S.M. Patnaik, A.K. Nath and S. Nanda, for the Appellant; S.P. Mishra, S. Honda, B. Mohanty, B.S. Panigrahi, A.K. Dash and A.P. Mishra for Respondent No. 1 and P.K. Mohanty, Mrs. J. Mohanty, D.N. Mohapatra, P.K. Nayak and S.N. Dash, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a civil suit seeking a declaration on a matter of status and legal character, such as a date of birth dispute, is maintainable in the civil court and not barred by res judicata if the issue was not conclusively decided in a prior proceeding.
Headnote:
Res Judicata - Date of Birth Dispute - Section 11 of CPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the date of birth of the plaintiff, who was employed by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The plaintiff's date of birth was mentioned as 23.04.1975 in the application form but as 23.04.1979 in the original Board of Secondary Education Certificate. The plaintiff sought correction of the date of birth, which was rejected by the Board of Secondary Education. The plaintiff filed a writ application, which was dismissed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the date of birth issue was not conclusively decided in the earlier writ application and that the civil suit seeking a declaration was not barred by res judicata. The court held that the date of birth dispute was a matter of status and legal character, and therefore maintainable in the civil court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the civil suit was barred by res judicata due to the earlier dismissal of the writ application. The court also considered the applicability of Section 11 of CPC and the Specific Relief Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the earlier dismissal of the writ application did not conclusively decide the date of birth issue, and therefore, the civil suit was not barred by res judicata. The court also emphasized that the date of birth dispute was a matter of status and legal character, making it maintainable in the civil court.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the lower appellate court's decision in declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff as 23.04.1975 instead of 23.04.1979.
JUDGMENT :
M.M. Das, J. - This Second Appeal has been filed against a reversing judgment, which has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:-
Whether the learned lower appellate court is justified in declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff as 23.4.1975 instead of 23.4.1979 as reflected in the High School Certificate since the same issue has been conclusively decided by this Court by judgment dated 3.7.2009 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2161 of 2007 and operate as res judicata?
In order to appreciate the contentions and submissions of the respective parties, it is necessary to state in brief the history of the proceeding, from which the present appeal arises. On 08.11.1994, the appellants Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short "IOCL") made a requisition to the District Employment Officer, Balasore for recommending the names to fill up the post of Junior Operator (F). In response to the said letter, the District Employment Officer sponsored the name of the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff by letter dated 17.01.1995. On 21.06.1995, the respondent No. 1 filled up an application form for employment along with an attestation form marked as Exts. A and B, in his own handwriting indicating that his date of birth is "23.04.1975". He also submitted a Provisional Certificate-cum-Mark-sheet purportedly issued on 02.07.1993 by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha marked as Ext. D. The respondent No. 1 received the original Board of Secondary Education Certificate on 31.08.1995, wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as "23.04.1979" (Ext. C).
2. The respondent No. 1 joined IOCL as Junior Operator (F) on 26.05.1996. On 31.10.2005, a complaint was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar with a copy endorsed to the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi as well as the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court alleging that the respondent No. 1, Emp. No. 32411 working at Indane Bottling Plant, Balasore of the IOCL has secured an employment as Junior Operator giving a forged certificate, in which his date of birth has been mentioned as "23.04.1975", though his actual date of birth is "23.04.1979" in the original Board Certificate. The complainant further stated that the respondent No. 1 has joined duty at Balasore Bottling Plant at the age of 16 years, which was not permissible. The said complaint was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. to the Chief Vigilance Officer, IOCL, New Delhi requesting to take necessary action. It was registered as VM-51/05-ER and forwarded to the Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) Mktg. (ER) for detailed investigation. The case was allotted to one Debasis Choudhury, Senior Vigilance Officer, who has been examined as D.W. 1 in the suit, for necessary investigation.
3. During the investigation, he found that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is "23.04.1979" and not "23.04.1975". The Assistant Secretary, Board of Secondary Education also by his letter dated 30.11.2005 (Ext. G) confirmed the date of birth of the respondent No. 1 to be "23.04.1979". The Headmaster of Nilagiri Road High School, by his letter dated 09.12.2005 also confirmed this fact. The Investigating Officer, therefore, recorded the finding that the date of birth of the respondent No. 1 is "23.04.1979" and not "23.04.1975" and further at the time of appointment, the respondent No. 1 has given a fake/manipulated provisional certificate of High School Examination showing his date of birth as "23.04.1975". On the above finding, the Vigilance Department of IOCL recommended for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent No. 1 for major penalty under the Certified Standing Orders as applicable to him. Accordingly, charges were framed registering a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 submitted his explanation to the charges framed denying the same, which was found to be unsatisfactory. However, in his explanation, he admitted to have submitted th
