Regular Second Appeal No. 2719 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2719 of 2010 Date of decision : October 25, 2010 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants versus Raj Kumari ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Narender Singh, DAG, Haryana for the appellants Respondent in person. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendants-State of Haryana and its functionaries have filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Raj Kumari filed suit against defendants/appellants alleging that under scheme framed by the defendants, female employee holding diploma of 'Bal Sewika' is eligible for one year course of JBT. Plaintiff possessed diploma of 'Bal Sewika' from Indian Council for Child Welfare, New Delhi (ICCW), which is approved by Government of India. Accordingly, the plaintiff in the year 1985 applied for appearing in JBT examination. She was issued Roll No. 5502 in August, 1985. Accordingly, she appeared in the said examination. However, her Regular Second Appeal No. 2719 of 2010 -2- result was not declared in spite of written requests dated 3.3.1999, 20.4.1999, 11.5.1999 and 27.7.1999. Finally vide letter dated 1.2.2001, the defendants intimated the plaintiff that diploma certificate produced by the plaintiff was not genuine. The plaintiff sought declaration of result of her JBT examination and also that she was entitled to service and other benefits. Defendants denied the plaint allegations and inter alia, pleaded that the diploma certificate produced by the plaintiff was found to be not genuine. Smt. Vidya Ben Shah mentioned to be President of ICCW on the certificate was not President of ICCW at the relevant time. The diploma certificate of the plaintiff was bogus and therefore, her result was not declared. Plaintiff's candidature had already been cancelled. The plaintiff was also not eligible for JBT course under the scheme because as per scheme diploma of 'Bal Sewika' should have been passed from Punjab, Haryana or Chandigarh whereas the plaintiff allegedly passed diploma course from Delhi. It was also pleaded that the suit is hopelessly time barred. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 25.1.2010 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been partly allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 13.4.2010 and the plaintiff has been held entitled to get result of her JBT examination declared. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred instant second appeal. Pursuant to order of the preceding date, records of the courts below have been received. Regular Second Appeal No. 2719 of 2010 -3- Respondent has appeared in person. On her request, the appeal has been heard finally today itself. The respondent has stated that she does not want to engage counsel. She was told that Free Legal Aid Counsel could be provided to her but even then she declined and stated that her case be decided today itself. In these circumstances, I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent in person and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that under the scheme persons holding diploma of 'Bal Sewika' from Punjab, Haryana or Chandigarh only were eligible for one year JBT course but according to plaintiff's own version she passed 'Bal Sewika' diploma from New Delhi and therefore, she was not eligible for the aforesaid one year JBT course. The respondent countered the contention by submitting that she was allowed to appear in the examination by the appellants. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Scheme Ex. P1 under which the plaintiff appeared in one year JBT course examination provides that the candidate should have passed the training of Bal Sewika or Nursery from Haryana, Punjab or Chandigarh. However, as per plaintiff's own version, she passed diploma of 'Bal Sewika' from New Delhi. Consequently, under the scheme the plaintiff was not eligible for one year JBT course examination. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the diploma allegedly obtained by the plaintiff from ICCW was not found to be genuine. The respondent, however, contended that she obtained verification of her diploma certificate from ICCW certifying that her diploma certificate is genuine. Regular Second Appeal No. 2719 of 2010 -4- I have carefully considered the rival submissions. The plaintiff has not examined any official from ICCW as witness to depict that her diploma certificate is genuine. This is in spite of the fact that the defendants specifically pleaded that the diploma certificate produced by the plaintiff was not genuine. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that she holds genuine diploma certificate of 'Bal Sewika'. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation as the plaintiff is seeking declaration of her result of 1985 examination whereas the suit was filed on 3.8.2006. The respondent, however, countered the contention by submitting that the defendants vide letter dated 1.2.2001 intimated the plaintiff that her diploma course certificate was not found genuine on verification and thereafter vide her application dated 12.6.2004 she applied to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari for providing her free legal aid but she was provided free legal aid in the year 2006 and thereupon the suit was filed and the suit is, therefore, within limitation. On careful consideration of rival submissions, I find that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff appeared in the examination in question in the year 1985. However, she filed suit on 3.8.2006 i.e. after expiry of more than two decades although the maximum limitation period for filing the suit was three years only. The plaintiff remained silent throughout this long period. In fact, even according to the plaintiff's own version, for the first time she made written request to the defendants on 3.3.1999 for declaration of her result. However, by then limitation period for filing suit had already expired long ago because the said written request was made by plaintiff to defendants more than 13 years after the plaintiff had appeared in the Regular Second Appeal No. 2719 of 2010 -5- examination. After allegedly making four written requests dated 3.3.1999, 20.4.1999, 11.5.1999 and 27.7.1999, the plaintiff again went in hibernation and finally woke up in the year 2004 when she filed application dated 12.6.2004 and allegedly sought free legal aid. However, as per plaintiff's own documents placed on record of the trial court, defendants had intimated the plaintiff vide letter dated 6.9.1999 that her 'Bal Sewika' certificate was not found to be genuine on verification and therefore, her JBT result could not be declared. However, thereafter it appears that the plaintiff made some request to the defendants in December, 2000 and thereupon she was again intimated vide letter dated 1.2.2001 that her 'Bal Sewika' certificate was not found to be genuine on verification. Thus, the plaintiff remained silent since the year 1985 till the year 1999 and again till December, 2000 and again till the year 2006 when she ultimately filed the suit. It is, thus, manifest that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. It may be added that besides seeking declaration of her result of JBT examination the plaintiff also sought appointment in service if found to be successful in the said examination but no basis has been laid in the plaint for claiming appointment to service merely on the basis of qualifying JBT course examination. Even the lower appellate court has not granted any such relief. From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that the following substantial questions of law arise for determination in this second appeal :- “1. Whether the plaintiff did not fulfill eligibility condition for one year JBT course ? 2. Whether the plaintiff had genuine 'Bal Sewika' certificate from ICCW, New Delhi ? Regular Second Appeal No. 2719 of 2010 -6- 3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation ?” For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, all these three substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants. Judgment of the lower appellate court is patently perverse and illegal and un-sustainable. The suit filed by the plaintiff could not have been decreed even partly as allowed by the lower appellate court. The suit is devoid of any merit. As a necessary upshot of the discussion aforesaid, the instant second appeal is allowed and judgment and decree dated 13.4.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari are set aside and judgment and decree dated 25.1.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari thereby dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent are restored. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 25, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'