Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 896
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
M.M. Das, B.P. Das, JJ.
BATAKRISHNA SAMAL - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 02-09-2009
The main legal point established is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to declare the correct date of birth and the binding nature of its Judgment and decree on the concerned parties.
Headnote:
Certiorari - Date of Birth Correction - Rule 65 of O.G.F.R. - [Rule 65 of O.G.F.R.] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to declare the correct date of birth, the contesting of the Board of Secondary Education in the Civil Suit, and the binding nature of the Judgment and decree of the Civil Judge. The court highlighted the error in the Tribunal's decision and directed the correction of the date of birth in the service book and the issuance of a corrected certificate to the Petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the Order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, challenging the rejection of his representations for correction of his date of birth in his service book and high school certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in its decision and directed the correction of the date of birth in the service book and the issuance of a corrected certificate to the Petitioner.
Issues: The issues included the contestation of the date of birth in the service book and high school certificate, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, and the binding nature of the Judgment and decree of the Civil Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare the correct date of birth, and the Judgment and decree of the Civil Judge is binding on the Board of Secondary Education.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, directing the correction of the date of birth in the service book and the issuance of a corrected certificate to the Petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
M.M. Das, J. - Issuance of writ of certiorari is sought by the Petitioner - against the Order Dated 2.2.2009 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 304 of 2002.
2. Brief facts leading to the present lis are that the Petitioner entered into Government service in the year 1982 & after completion of the probation period, joined as Establishment Officer in the office of the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Balasore in the year 1983. In his service book the date of birth of the Petitioner has been entered as 12.6.1952 which was on the basis of the certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner on passing the High School Certificate Examination in the year 1970. The Petitioner was, thereafter, promoted to the rank of Junior Class-I Officer & was posted as Commercial Tax Officer, Bhadrak in the year 1998. In September, 2001, the Petitioner was promoted Jo Class-I Senior Branch & posted as Additional Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, (Appellate Unit), Bhubaneswar & states to be presently wording as Joint Secretary, Finance (Department. It is the case of the Petitioner that though his date of birth has been mentioned as 12.6.1952 in his service book, but his actual date of birth is 28.4.1954. On realizing such mistake, the Petitioner repeatedly approached the Board of Secondary Education to correct the entry with regard to his date of birth in the certificate, but the Board of Secondary Education did not respond to such request. In the meanwhile, admittedly, the elder brother of the Petitioner filed T.S. No. 174 of 1995 before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jajpur, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Let it be declared that the Plaintiff is the eldest son of his father.
(b) Let it be declared that Defendant No. 1 is younger to plain tiff by one year & eleven months.
(c) Let it be declared that the Plaintiff has right, title, interest & possession over the suit land as his father's eldest son.
(d) Let the date of birth of Defendant No. 1 maintained in the High School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education be declared as wrong.
(e) Let the Defendant No. 3 be directed to correct the date of birth of Defendant No. 1 according to the finding of the Court.
(f) Let the cost of the suit be decreed.
(g) Let such other relief or reliefs be granted for which the Plaintiff is found entitled.
3. The Learned Civil Judge during pendency of the suit on an application filed by the Plaintiff, impleaded the Board of Secondary Education as Defendant No. 3 in the suit. The suit was contested by the Board of Secondary Education. The Learned Civil Judge framed the following issues in the suit:
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(iii) Whether the suit is properly valued?
(iv) Whether the Plaintiff is the eldest son of his father?
(v) Whether Defendant No. 1 is younger to the plain tiff by one year & eleven months?
(vi) Whether the Plaintiff has right, title, interest & possession over the suit land?
(vii) Whether the date of birth of Defendant No. 1 mentioned in the High School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education is wrong?
(viii) Whether the Defendant No. 3 can be directed to correct the date of birth of Defendant No. 1?
(ix) What relief, if any, the Plaintiff is entitled?
4. On considering the evidence adduced in the suit, the Learned Civil Judge came to the following findings of fact:
(i) A declaratory suit for correction of date of birth is maintainable before the Civil Court.
(ii) The Plaintiff who is the elder brother of the Defendant No. 1 (Writ Petitioner) is elder to the Defendant No. 1 by one year & 11 months.
(iii) The Plaintiff is in peaceful possession over the disputed properties. The date of birth of the Defendant No. 1 (Writ Petitioner) mentioned in the High School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education is wrong;
(iv) The Defendant No. 3 (Board of Secondary Education) cannot be directed to correct the
