SWP No. 1478/2010 Page 1 of 6 SWP No. 1437/2010 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR SWP No. 1478/2010, MP Nos. 2301/2010, 2463/2010 & 2968/2012. & SWP No. 1437/2010 Date of Decision: 27/10/2017 Abdul Rashid Wani Vs. State and ors. Abdul Rashid Wani Vs. State and ors. Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge. Appearance: For the petitioner(s): Mr. Hilal A Wani, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, for Respondent No. 5. Mr. Muzaffar Nabi, G.A i/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No Press/Media? ii/ Whether to be reported in Yes/No Digest/Journal? 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as projected in the writ petition are; the petitioner was appointed as Watcher in the year 1973 and was thereafter, promoted as Forest Guard somewhere in the year 1978. In the year 1989, he was further promoted to the post of Dy. Forester and thereafter Forester in the year 1991. While the respondent-department was in the process of finalization of the seniority of Foresters, it received objections from some of the officials in which allegations were made that the petitioner had forged his Date of Birth. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 vide communication No. 1199-1200/E dated 4.10.2010 called upon the petitioner to submit his matriculation certificate in SWP No. 1478/2010 Page 2 of 6 SWP No. 1437/2010 original within three days. It is claimed by the petitioner that he immediately approached the Zonal Education Officer, Doru, Anantnag for issuance of Date of Birth certificate in his favour. Responding to the request made by the petitioner, the ZEO concerned sought report from the concerned school where the petitioner had studied. The Headmaster of the school concerned reported to the ZEO Doru that the Date of Birth of the petitioner as per the school records was 04.05.1955. This, however, was not accepted by respondent No. 2 who had insisted for the production of his original matriculation certificate. In view of the failure of the petitioner to produce his original matriculation certificate, respondent No. 3 vide his communication No. 6CF(K)/ADM/2010/1694, dated 29.09.2010 requested respondent No. 5 to verify the particulars contained in the photocopy of the certificates which had already been provided to respondent No. 5. It was reported by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 5 that the record of the school for the years 1966-67 was reportedly gutted in a fire incident that allegedly took place in the year 1989. It appears that the process of verification was undertaken by the respondent No. 4 with respect to the Photostat copy of the matriculation certificate provided by the petitioner. On close scrutiny, respondent No. 5 vide his communication dated 4.10.2010, intimated to respondent No. 3 that all particulars mentioned in the Xerox copy of the qualification certificate of the petitioner except the Date of Birth coincide with the Board record. In the aforesaid communication, it was made clear by respondent No. 5 that the Date of Birth of the candidate as recorded in the Board records was actually 4.05.1951 and not 4.05.1954 as indicated in the Xerox copy. It appears that the petitioner feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid communication of respondent No. 5 dated 4.10.2010, approached this Court through the medium of SWP No. 1437/2010. This Court vide its order dated 21.10.2010 ordered as under :- “Issue notice to other side returnable within 4 weeks. Appropriate steps to be taken within one week. SWP No. 1478/2010 Page 3 of 6 SWP No. 1437/2010 Notice in CMP also. In the meantime, subject to objections of other side and till next date of hearing, present position of the petitioner be not disturbed” 3. While the aforesaid petition was pending, there appears to be another development in the matter, inasmuch as, respondent No. 5 purportedly issued a corrigendum to the earlier communication issued by it on 4.10.2010 indicating therein that as per the school and the Board records, the Date of Birth of the petitioner was 4.05.1955 and not 4.05.1951 or 4.05.1954. This corrigendum was allegedly issued by the respondent No. 5 vide his No. KD- 455 (VERI) dated 21.10.2010. In tune with the corrigendum aforesaid, revised Date of Birth certificate (Matriculation Certificate) appears to have been issued in favour of the petitioner purportedly by the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education. It is also contended that despite Court directions dated 21.10.2010 (supra), the Divisional Forest Officer, Anantnag issued Forest Order No. 65/2010 dated 26.10.2010 retiring the petitioner on superannuation from govt. service with effect from 30.05.2009. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid forest order as well as the communication of the State Board of School Education dated 29.10.2010 in SWP No. 1478/2010 in which this Court vide its order dated 01.11.2010 directed maintenance of Status Quo with respect to the petitioner. It may also be pertinent to note that the Date of Birth of the petitioner along with twenty others was also investigated by the Crime Branch and challan in this regard was also presented before the competent court of jurisdiction. However, the Crime Branch could not prove the allegations during the trial and as a consequence whereof all the accused including the petitioner were also acquitted by the Trial Court. 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid developments as also the fact that the verification letters of the respondent No. 5 dated 4.10.2010 and 29.10.2010 SWP No. 1478/2010 Page 4 of 6 SWP No. 1437/2010 as well as Forest Order No. 65/10 dated 26.10.2010 were subject matter of challenge in the two writ petitions (supra) and therefore, with a view to comply the interim order passed in the aforesaid petitions, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service as per his recorded Date of Birth in the Service Book i.e 4.05.1955, however, making it subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. It was also made clear that in case the petitioner ultimately fails in the writ petitions, the petitioner would be treated to have been retired from the govt. service from the due date and he would be liable to reimburse the salary for the period he had over stayed. This was done by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide Order No. 389 of 2011 dated 25.11.2011. Finally, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide his Order No. 238 of 2012 dated 22.10.2012 passed in compliance to the directions issued by this Court on 6.09.2012 in SWP No. 1478/10 rejected the claim of the petitioner for release of salary. It is this order as also the Forest Order No. 65/10 dated 26.10.2010, which is assailed by the petitioner in this petition. 5. In SWP No. 1437/2010, the petitioner has assailed the letter of the respondent No. 5 issued vide No. J-443 dated 4.10.2010 whereby the State Board of School Education upon verification found that the Photostat copy of the Date of Birth provided by the petitioner coincided with the Board records with regard to all particulars except his DOB and it was reported that the Date of Birth of the petitioner was actually 4.05.1951 and not 4.05.1954 as indicated in the Xerox copy of the Date of Birth certificate of the petitioner. 6. The reply has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 5 separately. The stand of the respondent No. 5 is clear and unequivocal that as per the records of the Board, the Date of Birth of the petitioner is 4.05.1951 and not 4.05.1954 as indicated in the Xerox copy of the Date of Birth SWP No. 1478/2010 Page 5 of 6 SWP No. 1437/2010 certificate produced by the petitioner. It was also clearly stated in the reply affidavit filed by the Board authorities that the subsequent communication and the revised Date of Birth certificate purportedly issued by the Joint Secretary (Verification) State Board of School Education was not issued from the Board and was thus fake and forged. 7. From the perusal of the record, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the actual Date of Birth recorded in the records of the State Board of School Education from where the petitioner has passed his matriculation is 4.05.1951 and not 4.05.1954 or 4.05.1955, as was projected by the petitioner from time to time. It is strange that the petitioner could manage to manipulate the records of the Board and got the communication dated 29.10.2010 and revised certificate of matriculation issued from the Board authorities which upon verification were found to be fake and forged. 8. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that his actual Date of Birth recorded in the records of the Board was 4.05.1954 or for that matter 4.05.1955 as was projected by him from time to time. Since the original record of his school was also found to be gutted, as such, aforesaid fact also could not be properly verified from the school authorities and the plea of petitioner remained unsubstantiated. 9. Be that as it may, the fact remain that a government employee is entitled to retire on superannuation going by his Date of Birth which is recorded in his Service Book. Although in the service records, the Date of Birth of the petitioner is recorded as 4.05.1954 but the same is not in consonance with the matriculation certificate submitted by him at the time of his initial appointment in the department. Respondent have got his Date of Birth verified from the Board authorities who have unequivocally stated that as per their records, the Date of Birth of petitioner is 4.05.1951. There is no reason to doubt the Verification made by the State Board Authorities on SWP No. 1478/2010 Page 6 of 6 SWP No. 1437/2010 more than one occasion, more so when the petitioner has not alleged any malafide against the aforesaid authorities. The petitioner also failed to produce the original Matriculation Certificate to substantiate his claim. 10. That being the position, both the petitions aforesaid are found to be devoid of merit and an attempt to misuse the process of law to legitimate his continuance in service. Accordingly, both the petitions along with all connected MPs are dismissed. (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Srinagar /10/2017: Tarun Judgment is pronounced by me today in terms of Rule 138 (3) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999. (M.K Hanjura) Judge Srinagar 27/10/2017