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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3395

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Gangaram – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Santosh Kumar Tiwari,Advocate General

ORDER

This petition is filed being aggrieved of the decision of the authorities rejecting the petitioner's representation for correction of his date of birth in terms of order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the High Court in W.P.No. 7745 of 2016 (s) .

Petitioner's contention is that he was appointed as a daily rated employee in the respondent Public Works Department. His actual date of birth is 15.12.1967 but it is wrongly mentioned as 05.11.1961 in the service record. The respondent department on 11.07.2014 had issued the list of daily rated employees working in the department and in this list name of the petitioner is at Sl. No. 601.

The case of the petitioner is that his date of birth has been wrongly mentioned as 05.11.1961 in place of 15.12.1967.

I have perused the order of the High Court which only directs to consider the representation and decide the same without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

When the decision of the authorities is tested in this behalf, then it is evident that the petitioner while furnishing his reply admitted that he has lost all the original papers as his native house is a temporary structure and it is further mentioned that in Adhar C

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top