Lakshmibai Nat.Inst.Of Phy.Edu.& Anr vs Shant Kumar Agrawal

2. The respondent passed Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh (for short, ‘the Board’). In the certificate issued by the Board on 17.6.1963, the respondent’s date of birth was recorded as 20.2.1942.

3. The respondent was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of Commissioner, Settlement and Director of Land Records, Madhya Pradesh on 27.5.1965. He worked in that office till 3.8.1966. After about five years, he made an application for change of his date of birth from 20.2.1942 to 15.1.1948, which was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 19.11.1971.

4. The respondent challenged the aforesaid decision in O.S. No.165- A/1974 and prayed that his correct date of birth be declared as 15.1.1948 and the Board be directed to incorporate the same in the Higher Secondary School Certificate. In the written statements filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Board, it was pleaded that the date of birth shown in the certificate issued in 1963 was correct and the suit is liable to be dismissed as barred by time because the same was filed much after expiry of the period of limitation.

6. The State and the Board challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court in Civil Appeal No.7-A/1977. The same was allowed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 27.7.1977 on the ground that the suit filed by the respondent in 1974 was barred by time. The second appeal and the special leave petition filed by the respondent were dismissed by the High Court and this Court respectively vide orders dated 3.4.2006 and 31.7.2006. The application filed by the respondent for review of order dated 31.7.2006 was also dismissed by this Court.

7. After reversal of the decree passed in his favour by the trial Court, the respondent was appointed as Personal Assistant in the services of appellant No.1. At the time of preparation of the service book, the respondent produced copy of the judgment of the trial Court and got his date of birth recorded as 15.1.1948. After some time, the Registrar of the appellants called upon the respondent to produce the original Higher Secondary School Certificate. However, instead of doing so the respondent submitted reply dated 30.7.1999 and claimed that the date of birth recorded in the service book, i.e., 15.1.1948 is the correct date of birth. The management of appellant No.1 rejected the respondent’s reply and retired him from service vide order dated 28.2.2002.

21. There is another reason for our inclination to set aside the impugned judgment. At the time of joining as Lower Division Clerk in the office of Commissioner, Settlement and Director of Land Records, Madhya Pradesh, the respondent did not produce any evidence showing his date of birth as 15.01.1948. At the time of his appointment in 1986 as Personal Assistant in the employment of appellant No.1, the respondent did not produce birth certificate dated 25.2.1970 issued by the Corporation. Rather, he got the date of birth entered in the service book by producing copy of the judgment of the trial Court, which had already been set aside by the lower appellate Court on 27.7.1977. If the respondent was possessed with the certificate issued by the Corporation under the 1969 Act, then there was no earthly reason for not producing the same for the purpose of recording of date of birth in the service book. However, the fact of the matter is that instead of relying upon the birth certificate, the respondent produced copy of the judgment of the trial Court and got his date of birth recorded as 15.1.1948 by suppressing the fact that the lower appellate Court had reversed the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by setting aside the orders passed by learned Single Judge.

23. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions and the review petition filed by the respondent are restored.