•\]s?^' .G r^l IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER ^^•^ ^s^ ».'•••""^"^ ^'^'v.y ,&". \~.-'" ..;>> •" RESPONDENTS Nandram Banjare, Son of Late Dileshar Banjare, aged about 47 years, Resident of Neai- Raipur Naka, Behind Shivam Clinic, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. The Senior Regional Manager, Regional Office, Food Corporation of India, Ring Road Junction, N.H. No. 6, Near Railway Crossing, Telibandha, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Liak Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS AND/ OR. NECESSARY DIRECTION/ORDERS. 311; !K; ::lS:k.;.tf' 81 ^ .111 m ~-is^; BB F' "SgjfcdSS^^jiBi.g'^^ "^ "T~"^"""""i ^ !- ^V ! 1' t' Nandram Banjare Versus The Senior Vlanager, F.C. s-.' i:. l^" ^'. ^^i'^;i^k " stw Post for orders on ^5'January, 2006 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihatri Judge sv..--- - "8 iG! K'^s.wsa Respondents 2. Nandram Banjare, Son ofLate Dileshar Banjare, aged about 47 years, Resident of Near Raipur Naka, Behind Shivam Ctinic, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) The Senior Regional Manager, Regionai Office, Food Corporation of india, Rin( Road Junction, N.H. No. 6, Near Raiiway Crossing, Telibandha, Raipur (Chhatiisgarh). District K4anager, Food Corporation of India, Link Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. e C:^>^:S|a.. .1.D. Dhote, counse! forthe petitioner. i.P. Gupta, counse! for the respondents. ?'!";:st% B% ,-»^. [Passed on ^Qn January, 2006) The foiiovring Order of the Court was passed by Satis! This petition filed by the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 16.7.1946 to •^ ^; o ^ r».^s' i G .Q. i i^^tJ, 2. The facts in nutsheil are that, the petitioner was appointed as Watchman by the respondente on 15.5.1973 and before joining he submitted origina! certificate oi, class-V!ll exa.mination issued by Education Department, Puroa Madhyamik Parlksha, Division Biiaspur, wherein the petitioner's date of birth recorded was 16.8.1955. ^m - ^ iS..»g]l 3. The petitioner received a memorandum dated 4.10.1979 (Annexure P-5) that origina! mark-sheet of Higher Secondaiy Schoo! Certificate (herei'nafter referred to as "HSSC") examination passed by him in 1979 for verification by the office was required. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner received one more memorandum dated 5,11.1979 (Annexure P-6), whereby he was informed that his date of birth was recorded in the office records as 16.7.1946, when his date of birth as per h'SSC examination, producsd by the petjtioner, was 16.8.1955. The petitioner was required to submit the on'ginal certificates of the middle schoo! board examination passed by him in 69-70 and the mark-sheet of HSSC examination passed by him in 1979 for verification. The petitioner producsd the said documents as required. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application again on 27.11.2000 (Annexure P-7) for correcting his date of birth from 16.7.1946 to 16.8.1955. One more representation was sent to the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Raipur on 17.4.2002 (Annexure P-8). The Deputy Manager (Personnel) for Senior Regiona! Manager, Raipur sent a communication to the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Biiaspur oo 19.4.2000 seeking clarification and iscertaining the actuai date of birth of the petitioner. The Assistant Manager (Administrative) for the District Manager by his communication dated 13.5,2002 (Annexure P-10) addressed to the Senior Regiona! Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office,. Raipur informed that of bjrth recorded in the office records was 16.7.1946. However, it was 'equested to finatise fhe matter on the basis of the school certificate. S. On the basis of return filed by the respondents, learned counsel for fhe respondents averred thatthe date ofbirth was declared as 16.7.1946 by the petitioner at the time of appointment. The petitioner had not filed any application before 27.11.2000 for correction of his date of birth, and as such the present petition be dismissed on the ground of deiay. Learned counsel did not question the genuineness and authenticity of the original certificates produced before the authorities and before this court. 7. Shri M.D. Dhote, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted original certificates way back in July, 1979 itself and the representation dated 27.11.2000 (Annexure P-7), was a second representation as pursuant to submission of his middle school certificate as well as HSSC examination, his date of birth was not corrected in the records. It was further contended that there is no delay in taking steps for correcting the date of birth as the same was done within a period of six years from the date of the appointment as soon as the petitioner came to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the office records. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records appended to the writ petition as weil as the return filed by the respondents. 9. ! found on perusal of the service record (Annexure R-1) that in the column of date of birth, the first date of birth written was blackened and then it was written 16.7.1946 without any initial/signature and against the coiumn of present age, the first figures of years was blackened and 27 was written, thereafter. !n the memorandurn dated 10.4.1980 (Annexure R-3), it is clsarly stated that the pefitioner has submitted mark-sheet of HSSC exarnination and according to which his date of birth was 16.8.1955. it was proposed to seek the explanation of the petitioner under v/hich he tried to cheat the organization. In memo dated 20.10.1981 (Annexure R-4), the pstitioner was directed to submit his expianation with regard to discrepancy 4 in his date of birth. it appears that no action was taken, thereafter, in the "aKSi; 10. Learned counse! for the respondents has produced, during hearing of the case, a copy of the applicatlon dated 10.7.1979 purported to be representation of the petitioner addressed to the District Manager, Food Corporation of !ndia, whereby the petitioner has submitted 'nis HSSC examination certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopai, wherein the dale of birth recorded was 16.8.1955. Hence, contention ofthe learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has raised dispute in regard to change of the date of birth after more than 20 years in November, 2000, is unsustainable and dese'ves be rejected. It is cleariy proved on the basis of records that the dispute was raised in Juiy 1979 itself and which was under consideration ti!l 1981, when it was proposed to seek expianation from the petitioner. The respondents, thereafter, kept quite and did not proceed against the petitloner for any omission/commission with regard to the date of birth. 10. Learned counsei for fhe respondents heavily relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. S.C. Chadha , others Vs. Guiaichi (Smt$ , Union pf India Vs. Ltd. Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad & others , and State of T.N. Vs. T. V. Venugopalan , in support of his contention that any claim for correction of date of birth must be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no i-u!e or order \2004) 3 Supreme.Court Cases 394, 2(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 483, 3(1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 162, 4AIR 1995 SC 1349, 5AIR 2001 SC 72; and 6(1994) 6 SCC 302. _„_-.—..-—"-"•,. 1s framed, then such appiication must be filed at ieast within a reasonable time. Delay in making an appiication cannot be allowed in view or unexplained and inordinate de!ay after decades. *;it;::l:'iia!B T 11. It is we!! settled principles of law that any deiay in making an app!ication for correction of the date of birth or and an application for correction of the date of birth at the fag end of his carrier shouid not be entertained. in the present case, the correct date of birth was informed by appiication in Juiy 1979 itself. The petitioner was appointed as Watehman on 15.5.1973. Hence, there v/as no delay in making the applicatlon for correction of the date of birth as HSSC examination certiflcate indicating of the date of birth of the petitioner as 16.8.1955, was admittedly fi!ed in July 1979. Subsequent representation dated 27.11.2000 cannot be taken as the first application/representation for correction of the date of birth. Argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the first application along with E-iSSC examination certificate was made for the purpose of seniority list, not for the correction of the date of birth, is not sustainable. The authorities had Issued memos on the basis of middle schooi certificate as well as HSSC examination certificate showing date of birth as 16.8.1955 in 1979 and the fiie, it appears, was closed in 1981 without taking any decision. Failure to correct date of birth for a long period on the part of the respondents prompted the petitioner to make an application on 27.11.2000 again. Hence, there is no delay in fiiing the application/representation for con'ection of the date of birth and the application was not made at the fac end of the service of'thepetitioner. On theexamination of all the papers, pre-middle school examination certtficate, 1969 and HSSC examination 6 certificate, 1979. it is established that the petitioner's date of birth is 16.8.1955. 13. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to take appropriate steps accordingiy. No order 2S tO COStS. <fl! Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '!E-'.y'::S:'*••»,• 'F'-"acSg| <t®tSS '"••• -s^i^^,S& J