SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(P&H) 2510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
Angat Singh Chohan - Petitioner
Versus
CBSE and others - Respondents
CWP No. 15230 of 2016
Decided On : 19-12-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate.

The evidentiary value of birth and death records and the unjustified technical rejection based on amended bye-laws.

Headnote:

Birth Certificate - Correction of Date of Birth - Punjab and Haryana High Court - Births and Deaths Record - CWP No. 16151 of 2003 - Rule 69.2 (iv)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought correction of his date of birth as per the birth certificate. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous judgment, and directed the necessary changes in the service record of the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the birth and death records had presumptive value, and the appeal deserved to be allowed based on the correct date of birth as per the records.

Issues: The issues involved the correction of the date of birth as per the birth certificate and the application of the amended bye-laws of the respondent board.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the evidentiary value of the birth certificate issued by the Registrar (Birth and Death) was significant and that the technical rejection based on the amended bye-laws was unjustified, considering the timely filing of the application.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the previous judgment was set aside, and the necessary changes in the service record of the petitioner were directed. The respondent-board was instructed to process the application for change of date of birth on merits within a specified period.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

1. Petitioner seeks the correction of the date of birth as per the birth certificate dated 13.11.1997 (Annexure P/1) wherein, his date of birth has been depicted as 10.11.1997. It is pertinent to mention that the said certificate was registered on 12.11.1997 in which there is an entry that Pritpal Singh and Monica had registered the birth of a male child. The registration date is of utmost important in the present case since the same was within two days of the date of birth. It has been held time and again by the Apex Court that evidentiary value of the certificate issued by the Registrar (Birth and Death) is of much evidentiary value and the said certificate cannot be brushed aside lightly. Reliance can be placed upon the observation made in Narinder Kaur Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court and others, 2011 (2) SCR 534. The relevant part reads as under :-

“7. The main reason assigned by the High Court for dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant is that the appellant had failed to show satisfactorily that she had not taken any advantage of the recorded date of birth. It was further held by the High Court that the appellant belonged to a mature class and her age as declared in the application Form for selection must have influenced the mind of the Selection Committee and, therefore, the principle of estoppel would apply to the facts of the case. The High Court also held that notification dated 13.8.2001 is discretionary in nature and the appellant is not entitled to change in her birth date on the basis of the said notification.

8. It may be mentioned that the State of Punjab and Punjab and Haryana High Court had filed reply affidavit before the High Court. However, no material was produced on the record of the case to show that the appellant had taken undue advantage of the recorded date of birth. The proceedings relating to the selection of the appellant as Civil Judge never formed part of the instant case and, therefore, it was preposterous on the part of the High Court to assume that the learned High Court Judges who were members of the Selection Committee while selecting the appellant as Civil Judge (J.D.) must have been influenced by the age of the appellant as declared by her in the application form for selection. The record does not indicate that after receipt of the application from the appellant regarding change of her birth date, any inquiry, much less a special inquiry as contemplated by amended Rules of 2001 was undertaken by the High Court. It is true that the amended Rules of 2001 are discretionary in nature but that fact by itself does not justify the High Court on its administrative side to ignore them altogether and then to come to the conclusion that on the basis of the discretionary rules, the appellant is not entitled to claim change in her date of birth.

9. In the present appeal, Dr. J.P. Singh, Director, Health & Family Welfare-cum-Chief Registrar, Births & Deaths, Punjab has filed an affidavit on 26.8.2010 mentioning that as per the record maintained by the office of Local Registrar, Births & Deaths, Municipal Council, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala, Punjab, the entry of the birth of the appellant is recorded with particulars as Annual Sr. No. 10, Date of Registration 11.1.1972, Date of Birth 9.1.1972. Thus, the State of Punjab has now admitted in this affidavit that the correct date of birth of the appellant as per births and deaths record was 9.1.1972. The contents of the affidavit filed by Dr. J. P. Singh, Director, Health & Family Welfare-cum-Chief Registrar, Births & Deaths, Punjab are not disputed or controverted in any manner by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

10. In view of the presumtive value which attachs to the birth and death records, this Court is of the opinion that appeal deserves to be allowed.

11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds. The judgment dated 20.4.2006 rendered by Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana a










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top