REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.617 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 06, 2010 Hans Raj .....Appellant VERSUS Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. K. S. Bassi, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The appellant was working as a Armed Guard with respondent-Bank and is aggrieved against the action of the Bank in discontinuing his service. He had filed a suit for seeking declaration that he should be treated in continued service by declaring the order relieving him to be illegal, null and void. As per the averments made in the suit, the appellant was appointed as a Armed Guard with the Bank on 26.11.1992. He was subsequently transferred to extension counter Gurdwara Khel Sahib, Phatak No.22, Patiala, where he served till 15.7.1978. The appellant was terminated suddenly without notice on 15.7.1978. It is alleged REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.617 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 2 }: that defendant-Bank had initiated a process of recruiting persons in the Bank and the applicants were called for interview through the Employment Exchange. The appellant also appeared for the interview as he was having requisite qualification. The counsel alleges that selection is made arbitrarily, ignoring the merit by adopting the policy of pick and choose. The appellant accordingly challenged his termination and even pleaded that he deserves to be regularised as he had served with the Bank continuously since 1992. In the written statement filed, it was stated that the requisition was sent for appointment as Armed Guard on daily wages. It was admitted that the appellant had worked on daily wages but he was paid only honorarium. After selection, a permanent Guard had joined duty and accordingly the appellant was relieved. The allegations of pick and choose were denied and it was stated that these have been made out of frustration. It was also stated that the appellant was interviewed but could not be selected being more than 45 years of age. The suit filed by the appellant was dismissed and his first appeal was also dismissed. He has accordingly filed the present Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the the appellant had established his age to be less than 45 years of age on the basis of evidence. He would also submit that the appellant had made a prayer for regularisation and in that event, his age would have to be seen from the date he started working with the Bank and not when he was considered for the purpose of regularisation. In support, the counsel has relied upon the case of Baldu Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2000 (2) RSJ 160. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.617 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 3 }: If the plea is for regularisation of services, then the ratio of law in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, 2006 (2) Service Cases Today 462 would stand in the way of appellant. It is also not shown if the Bank has any policy of regulaisation on the basis of which this prayer was made and is to be considered. In fact, the entire case set up was that age of the appellant was less than 45 years and as such, he was wrongly denied appointment on the ground that he is over 45 years of age. To show his age, the appellant had produced a school leaving certificate, which is Exhibit PW1/A. The counsel for the respondent- Bank had objected to the admissibility of this document. The Court held that this document can not be relied upon. The entries made in the School certificate or the school records in a way are derivative evidence and the same can only be taken into consideration in the absence of any other proof of age. Even otherwise, the document submitted by the appellant himself had contradicted the evidence given by him on the basis of a school leaving certificate. The appellant had submitted a bio-data with the bank, where he had shown his date of birth to be 8.7.1952. In the school record, this is shown as 10.10.1954. The first Appellate Court, without considering the admissibility of the school leaving record, has made comment on these documents. Thereafter, reference has been made to the record received from the Army Medical Corps, Lucknow, where the date of birth of the appellant was shown as 8.7.1952. It is noticed that the appellant himself has provided this information. Whatever may be the case, it is seen that the documents regarding age, giving contradictory age are coming from the custody of the appellant REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.617 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 4 }: himself. There would, thus, be doubt as to his correct date of birth. In this background, the school record could be ignored, being not authenticated and having not been validly proved. The date of birth was given in the bio-data by the appellant himself and, thus, he had admitted his age to be 8.7.1952, which was also in conformity with the records from the Army Authorities, where he had earlier served. Though the Appellate Court has considered these documents with some contradictory observations, but a view is possible that the appellant could not show himself to be less than 45 years of age and his not being selected on the ground of being over age can not be faulted. There is no merit in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 06, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE