Back
2004 Supreme(All) 153
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.B.Misra
RAM KRISHNA PANDEY
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD
Decided On : 29 January 2004
C. M. W. P. No. 41442 of 1999
ANAND TIWARI, Ashok Khare, Prakash Padia, R.G.PADIA, S.D.Shukla,
Headnote:
Date of Birth - Employment Dispute - U. P. Recruitment to Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, Article 14 of the Constitution - 1972-73 and 1973-74 financial statements, medical examination, school leaving certificate, fire incident, ossification of bones, service record, leave record, High School Certificate, School Admission Register, Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 - The court discussed the disputed date of birth of the petitioner, the authenticity of the documents, and the application of U. P. Recruitment to Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, and Article 14 of the Constitution. The court emphasized the importance of strong documentary evidence to change the date of birth recorded at the time of entering into service and the need for proper procedure and reasonable time for correction of date of birth in service records. The court also highlighted the presumption of regularity in official acts and the burden of proof on the applicant to substantiate the claim for correction of date of birth.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Class-IV employee at Allahabad University, challenged a notice for his retirement based on his date of birth. The petitioner claimed a different date of birth based on a school leaving certificate and a medical examination, while the university authorities relied on financial statements and the petitioner's own disclosure at the time of appointment. The respondents argued that the alteration of date of birth was a disputed question of fact and should be adjudicated in a trial court with authentic supporting documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the alteration of date of birth was a disputed question of fact that could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized the importance of strong documentary evidence and proper procedure for correction of date of birth in service records.
Issues: Disputed date of birth, authenticity of documents, application of U. P. Recruitment to Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, and Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strong documentary evidence to change the date of birth recorded at the time of entering into service, proper procedure and reasonable time for correction of date of birth in service records, and the burden of proof on the applicant to substantiate the claim for correction of date of birth.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court declined to invoke its extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant any relief as prayed for by the petitioner.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri S. D. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Tiwari, learned Counsel, holding brief of Sri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the respondents.
In this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 13-9- 1999 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) issued by the Registrar, University of Allahabad and further prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from effecting any recovery on the basis of the order dated 13-9-1999 and also for commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as a Class-IV employee till 31-10-2003 i. e. till he attains the age of 60 years.
2. It appears that by order dated 13-9-1999, treating the petitioners date of birth 30-1-1939 as entered into service record, the petitioner after completing the age of superannuation was notified to be retired from 30-1-1999, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
3. According to the petitioner, he is only VIIIth Class pass and is not High School pass, however, he was appointed as Lab. Attendant (Class-IV post) in the year 1963 in the Allahabad University, and in the transfer certificate issued by the school the date of birth of the petitioner is specified as 30-1-1943.
According to the petitioner since in the year 1986 large number of records of Allahabad University including the service book of employees including that of the petitioner were destroyed in a fire, which took place in the office of the Registrar of the University. On account of such destruction, the Registrar of University directed total number of 70 employees including the petitioner to undergo a medical examination before the Senior Medical Officer, where the certificate dated 29-10-1986 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was issued to the petitioner assessing his age as 43 years by physical appearance. As such, the date of birth of the petitioner as 29-10-1943 was acknowledged on the basis of medical certificate and was accepted from the year 1986 by the University Authorities, according to which the petitioner could only be retired on 31-10-2003, however, a notice dated 13-9-1999 has been issued retiring the petitioner on 30-1-1999, which is in violation of principle of natural justice, against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and is also without any rhyme or reason.
4. According to the respondents, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 30-1-1939 in various old financial statements of the university and the financial statement of the university for the year 1972- 73 and 1973-74 (Annexures-CA-1 and CA-2 to the counter affidavit) revealed the date of birth of the petitioner as 30-1-1939. The petitioner himself at relevant time of appointment has disclosed his date of birth as 30-1-1939 on the basis of one school leaving certificate (enclosed as Annexure-CA-3 to the counter affidavit), and the University had also initiated action against the petitioner on account of the complaint (Annexure-CA-4 to the counter affidavit) made by Sri Shyam Babu, and the medical examination was superfluous and was not based on deeper examination, therefore, the same cannot be believed, whereas in the earlier documents prepared at the time of entering into service and in various records and financial statements disclosed by the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner is 30-1- 1939. The petitioner wants to take advantage of fire, which took place in the year 1986, and on the basis of estimated date of birth given in the medical certificate, which, according to the respondents, is only a farce.
5. On behalf of the respondents it has been argued that the claim of alternation of date of birth in the facts and circumstances by disputing the same is disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into writ jurisdiction, as the same could be adjudicated before th
