Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shakuntla Devi vs State Of H.P. And Another on 25 October, 2019
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RSA No. 114/2009
Decided on:25.10.2019
_______________________________________________________
.
Shakuntla Devi ....Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and another. ...Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
_______________________________________________________
For the appellant : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional Advocate
r General, for respondent No1.
Mr. Vir Bhadur Verma, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
_______________________________________________________
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.(oral)
The suit was filed by the appellant seeking correction in her date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate from 03.01.1973 to 03.01.1975, which stands reflected in her Matriculation Certificate as well. The suit was decreed by learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 02.07.2008, however, the appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed by the learned First Appellate Court on 10.12.2008. Aggrieved against dismissal of her civil suit by the learned First Appellate Court, instant appeal has 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2019 20:25:03 :::HCHP 2 been preferred by the appellant. Parties hereinafter are referred to as they were before the learned Trial Court.
.
2. This appeal was admitted on 25.03.2009 on following substantial questions of law:-
"1. Whether the First Appellate Court below has misread and mis-appreciated the evidence produced on record as Exhibit PW-1/A and PW- 1/B?
2. Whether the First Appellate Court below has failed to take into consideration that the presumption of truth is attached to the Parivar Register, Birth and Death Register and record of Government of Primary School, Punan and wrongly discarded these evidence?"
3. I have heard Sh. Anup Rattan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. Anil Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General and Sh. Vir Bhadur Verma, learned counsel for the respondents and with their assistance gone through the record.
Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 1 & 2:-
4. Both the questions of law being interlinked, are taken up together for adjudication. The facts as borne out from the pleadings and the evidence are:-
4(i) Plaintiff was initially resident of Gram Panchayat, Sholli. Gram Panchayat Sholli, had issued a certificate to the ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2019 20:25:03 :::HCHP 3 plaintiff on 19.04.1980 (Ext. PW-3/A) to the effect that her date of birth was entered in the Gram Panchayat record as 03.01.1975.
.
4(ii) Plaintiff, thereafter shifted to Gram Panchayat Barog.
Certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Barog on 02.10.2005 (Ext.
PW-1/A) also shows that as per record of Gram Panchayat Barog, the recorded date of birth of the plaintiff was 03.01.1975.
4(iii) Ext. PW-2/A is the Certificate issued by Govt. Primary School, Punan to the effect that:- plaintiff was admitted in Govt.
Primary School, Punan, District Shimla at Sr. No. 298/29; plaintiff studied Primary Classes there; her date of birth recorded at the time of admission in Class-I on 28.04.1980 was 03.01.1975; she passed out class-5th from the school on 28.02.1986.
4(iv) Ext. PW-3/B is the admission form filled by the mother of the plaintiff at the time of admission of plaintiff in the above mentioned school. This admission form dated 28.04.1980 also reflects the date of birth of the plaintiff as 03.01.1975.
4(v) The dispute is in respect of the School Leaving Certificate Ext. PW-2/B dated 11.03.1986, wherein date of birth has been recorded as 03.01.1973.
4(vi) The record shows that in both the Gram Panchayats i.e., Sholli as well as Barog, the date of birth of the plaintiff is ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2019 20:25:03 :::HCHP 4 recorded as 03.01.1975. Her date of birth entered by her mother at the time of admitting her in Govt. School, Punan, was recorded as .
03.01.1975. The date of birth recorded by the school in its admission register while granting admission to the plaintiff in Class-I was also 03.01.1975. It is only in the School Leaving Certificate that the date of birth of the plaintiff was entered as 03.01.1973 instead of 03.01.1975. There was no basis with the school for having entered the date of birth of the plaintiff as 03.01.1973 in the School Leaving Certificate. Even in the remarks column entered in Ext. PW-2/A, it has been stated that the error in recording the date of birth of the plaintiff in School Leaving Certificate was on account of some inadvertent mistake.
4(vii) The plaintiff while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, stated that she became aware of incorrect recording of her date of birth in the School Leaving Certificate only in the year 2005.
It is seen from her statement that she has not been given any suggestions by the respondents to the effect that she was aware of the incorrect recording of her date of birth in her School Leaving Certificate at any point of time earlier. The instant suit was filed in 2006. Present was not a case of a person, who was praying for correction in the date of birth at the fag end of service/employment.
::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2019 20:25:03 :::HCHP 5The plaintiff was 31 years old at the time of filing of the civil suit.
4(viii) Hon'ble Apex Court in (2010) 11 SCC 702, titled as .
Manoj Kumar vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, held thus:-
"12. The explanation offered by the appellant with supporting documents, was not considered either by respondents 3 and 4, or by the Tribunal and the High Court. They ignored the relevant material and decided against the appellant only because the matriculation certificate as it stood at the time of the employment application was different from the date given in the application for employment. While the matriculation certificate is a strong material, other equally relevant material cannot be ignored, particularly when the matriculate certificate has been corrected. The case of an entrant seeking correction of date of birth should not be equated with cases of government servants at the tail end of their service trying to get extension of service by alleging wrong date of birth. We should also not lose sight of the fact that many service Rules provide for change of date of birth in the Service Register, on production of satisfactory proof, provided that the change is sought within the first few years of entering service. Be that as it may. "
In 2009 (7) SCC 283, titled as CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, Hon'ble High Court has observed as under:-
"18. The deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness. Such entries made in the statutory registers are admissible in evidence in terms of ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2019 20:25:03 :::HCHP 6 Section 35 of the Evidence Act. It would prevail over an entry made in the school register, particularly, in absence of any proof that same was recorded at the instance of the guardian of the respondent. (See Birad .
Mal Singh v. Anand Purohit)."
5. The First Appellate Court has failed to observe the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments.
The incorrect date of birth appearing in the plaintiff's Matriculation Certificate is directly attributable to the incorrect entry made in the School Leaving Certificate dated 11.03.1986 (Ext. PW-2/B) in respect of which the plaintiff is not at fault.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is quashed and set aside. Suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed accordingly. Judgment and decree dated 02.07.2008, passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed. Pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of .
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge 25th October, 2019 (reena) ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2019 20:25:03 :::HCHP 7 .
::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2019 20:25:04 :::HCHP