Jharkhand High Court
Sarita Narayan vs H.E.C. Through The ... on 10 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(2)JCR663(JHR)]
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
ORDER Tapen Sen, J.
1. When this case was called out, Mr. R. Mukhopadhya, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that he has filed two Supplementary Affidavits pursuant to the order dated 27.03.2003 but due to complete inadvertence, the number of both Supplementary Affidavits has been wrongly mentioned. In the mean time he prays that he may be allowed to make the necessary corrections. He may do so during the course of the day.
2. Heard Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Mukhopadhya, learned counsel for the Respondents.
3. The Writ Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.09.2001 as contained at Annexure-5 passed by the manager (P and A)/Head Quarters by which on the basis of the pre employment medical examination report dated 15.08.1977, the date of birth of the Petitioner was accepted as 15.07.1945.
4. The Petitioner has further prayed that the Respondents be directed to accept the date of birth of the Petitioner as 15.09.1948, i.e. the date on which the Respondents always acted upon because, i.e. the date as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate (School Leaving Certificate) Consequently the Petitioner prayed that the Respondents should be directed to allow the Petitioner to remain in service till 30,09.2006.
5. According to the Petitioner, her husband died in harness on 15.07.1976 whereafter on the basis of compassion, she was appointed initially as an Assistant Teacher in H.E.C. School on 25.04.1977 whereafter she was asked to work on the post of Registration Attendant with effect from 15.07.1977 which was a post equivalent to Grade IV post. The Petitioner has stated that in the mean time, she was also shifted to the Medical Section as an Assistant Grade-I, Medical Division, H.E.C. Plant Hospital. According to the Petitioner, at the time of her appointment itself she had given out her date of birth as 15.09.1948 on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. The Petitioner has further stated that in the year 1979 (i.e. within two years from the date of her appointment), she received the School Leaving Certificate and upon receiving the same, she immediately deposited it in the same year in the office of the Respondents. She has brought on record a photo copy of the said School Leaving Certificate by Annexure-2 and from a perusal thereof it is evident that the date of birth recorded therein is 15.09.1948. The Petitioner has further stated that the Respondents always have acted upon on the basis of the aforesaid School Leaving Certificate and even at the time of Issuance of medical cards, the Respondents by Annexure-3, mentioned the date of retirement of the Petitioner as 30.09.2006 meaning thereby, they accepted the date of birth to be 15.09.1948 as recorded in the School Leaving Certificate. According to the Petitioner, someone with the Respondents made a manipulation in her service sheet and cleverly made the date 15.09.1948 to read as 15.09.1945 and in support thereof Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of this Court to Annexure-1. Annexure-1 does show that there is a manipulation.
6. The Counter Affidavit in this case was filed by the Respondents on 07.02.2002 in which at paragraph 7, the Respondents have stated that a medical examination had been conducted prior to the appointment and in that pre-employment medical examination, the Petitioner had declared her age to be 32 years. A photo copy of the pre-employment medical report has been brought on record by the Respondents vide Annexure-1 to the Counter Affidavit.
7. On the earlier occasion when this case was called out, Mr. R. Mukhopadhya, who was assisted by the Chief of Personnel had requested that certain documents are necessary to be brought on record and pursuant thereto he has filed two Supplementary Affidavits. In the first Supplementary Affidavit, Annexure-A/1 is the pre-employment medical examination report which appears to have been conducted on 15.07.1977 and which records that on that date the Petitioner gave out her date of birth as 32 years. If this be correct, then the Petitioner's date of birth has to be accepted as 1945, however the document namely Annexure-A/6 which corresponds to Annexure-2 of the Writ Application is a Matriculation Certificate which shows the date of birth as 15.09.1948. If this document is taken to be correct then it shows that the management while issuing the medical cards have mentioned the date of retirement as 30.09.2006 meaning thereby the date of birth was accepted to be 15.06.1948 (i.e. the date of which she completes 58 years of age).
8. It appears that on the aforementioned School Leaving Certificate which the Petitioner filed, there is an endorsement of the A.P.O. Hqrs. mentioning that he had seen the original School Leaving Certificate. Accordingly, Mr, R. Mukhopadhya produced for perusal of this Court a photo copy of the School Leaving Certificate which has been retained in the personal file of the Petitioner and upon perusal thereof, it appears that Annexure-A/6 does mention the fact that the Personnel Officer had seen the original and had directed the photo copy thereof for being maintained in the records of the case. The aforesaid fact in relation to School Leaving Certificate finds support from Annexure A/6 brought on record by the Respondents in their second Supplementary Affidavit, i.e. dated 14.01.1991 and it shows that the Respondents do mention an event to the effect that the Petitioner had produced both documents including the original School Leaving Certificate which mentioned the date of birth as 15.09.1948. Only thereafter, the photo copy was directed to be kept in the personal file.
9. It is now well known that the Matriculation Certificate is the only conclusive document in relation to certification of age. In that view of the matter, the Respondents appear to have not acted in accordance with law while passing the impugned order on the basis of the pre-employment medical examination report. If the School Leaving Certificate was seen in original then the Respondents even at that time had the opportunity not to proceed on the basis of the said School Leaving Certificate but by issuance of Annexures-3 and 3/1, it is evident that they acted all along on the basis of the date of birth as recorded in the School Leaving Certificate and not on the basis of the pre- employment medical examination report. In view of the settled principle to the effect that Matriculation Certificate is the conclusive proof to establish the date of birth and in view of the judgment cited by Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the Petitioner namely 2001 (1) PLJR page 451, i.e. the case Radhe Shyam Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors., it must therefore be held that the action of the Respondents, in acting on the basis of the pre-employment medical examination report contrary to the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate, was not proper. Moreover in the face of overwhelming documents, even as on date in the personal file to the effect that the A.P.O. Hqrs. had verified the original School Leaving certificate, they cannot, at this stage, be allowed to fall back on any declaration that she may have given at a time prior to the employment, i.e. pre-employment medical examination report.
For all the reasons stated above, therefore the impugned order dated 19.09.2001 as contained at Annexure-5 cannot be sustained.
Additionally the so called medical examination report on the face of it, is a pre-employment stage declaration, but immediately after employment, i.e. within two years, i.e. 1979, the Petitioner submitted the School Leaving Certificate in the year 1979 itself as has been stated in paragraph 8 of the Writ Application. Paragraph 8 of the Writ Application has been replied at paragraph 13 of the Counter affidavit but that paragraph does not directly answer the statement made in paragraph 8 to the effect that the Petitioner had submitted the School Leaving Certificate in the year 1979 itself. For all the reasons stated above therefore, it appears that the impugned order has been passed without proper application of mind and in that view of the matter the same requires reconsideration at the hands of the Respondents. Accordingly, Annexure-5, i.e., the order dated 19.09.2001 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Respondents to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. It goes without saying that while passing a fresh order, the Respondents may call upon the Petitioner to explain any other documents or datas which are in their possession and which requires clarification such as the statement given by her husband in relation to her age also.