Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Mukul Singal vs Chandigarh Administration And Anr on 6 February, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.2539 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION : 6.2.2013
Dr. Mukul Singal
...Petitioner
Versus
Chandigarh Administration and Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
PRESENT: Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate for the petitioner
....
Notes: 1.Whether to be referred to the reporters or not?Yes
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
....
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The petitioner failed to get his date of birth corrected from 12.7.1988 to 12.7.1989 before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.8546 of 2008. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court dated 29.3.2011 has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. The LPA No.496 of 2011 in intra court appeal also failed before the Division Bench of that Court on 27.5.2011. However, a limited prayer was granted by the appellate Bench to the following effect:-
"Regard being had to the aforesaid limited prayer, we only observe and clarify that the passport of the appellant shall not be cancelled or no action should be taken under the Passport Act solely due to the difference in the date of birth. That will not be also a ground for denial of the passport."
Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court was dismissed CWP No.2539 of 2013 2 by order dated 10.9.2012. The matter has consequently attained finality.
The petitioner has now filed this petition before this Court praying that a direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh and the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh that they should forward the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (for short "ECFMG") Verification Form received from an institution in the USA by the petitioner for pursuing further studies abroad by appending both the academic record with date of birth as per school record and also simultaneously appending the copies of passport and certificate of birth of the petitioner etc., so as to give a complete picture about the petitioner's candidature and to direct them to transmit the docket before the last date of receipt of applications in foreign country to meet the deadline of 14.2.2013. The petitioner points out to a letter dated 15.1.2013 (P-9) received from Philadelphia, USA informing him as under:-
"The Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) has received your final medical diploma.
ECFMG medical education credential policy requires that ECFMG send a copy of the final medical diploma to the medical school for verification by the appropriate officials. When ECFMG sends your medical diploma to the medical school for verification, ECFMG will request the medical school to include your final medical school transcript when the school returns the verification of your medical diploma to ECFMG. Your credentials will not be considered complete until ECFMG receives verification of your medical diploma and final medical school transcript directly from the medical school."
The petitioner has pleaded in paragraph 2 of the writ petition as under:-
"2.That the grievance of the petitioner in nut-shell is that the actual date of birth of the petitioner as per all his official records and documents is 12.07.1988. However, while the petitioner passed out from Army School, Jaipur in the year 2002, while he was still a minor, the petitioner's date of birth had erroneously been recorded by the School Authorities as 12.07.1989. At the relevant time, the petitioner was a minor and Army School, Jaipur Cantt., erroneously entered the date of birth of the petitioner as 12.07.1989.
The said erroneous date of birth has been entered in the academic records of the petitioner, such as 10th and 12th Certificates by the CBSE, and the petitioner has already lost his round of litigation, against the change of date of birth, initiated in Hon'ble the Delhi High Court, including in Apex CWP No.2539 of 2013 3 Court, and as such the date of birth recorded in academic records, even though erroneously recorded, has to be treated as final. However, for the higher studies of the petitioner, such PG Examinations, entry into Govt. Service and for entry into USA, known as USMLE Studies etc., the authorities insists upon submission of other supporting documents such as Passport, Birth Certificate etc., unfortunately, which in the case of the petitioner, contain actual date of birth of the petitioner, which is not in tune with the academic record of the petitioner, due to which an anomalous and piquant situation has arisen."
(underlined for emphasis) It is unfortunate that the petitioner having lost till the Supreme Court in his effort to get his date of birth corrected yet insists that the date of birth recorded in the academic record was done erroneously but has to be treated as final due to Court orders. What the petitioner could not get directly from the Delhi High Court, he seeks to get indirectly from this Court. It is not for this Court in writ jurisdiction to set about to remove the dichotomy between two sets of record or to command the respondents to do so.
There is no statutory obligation or enforceable duty on the Chandigarh Administration and its Government Medical College and Hospital to cater to the request of the petitioner and forward the ECFMG Verification Form in the manner dictated by him for a personal cause which originates in a foreign land. This Court cannot act as a facilitator. Neither are the respondents duty bound in the face of previous litigation to act and 'verify the date of birth' of the petitioner as per academic record and other documents and not his academic record alone as suggested in the question of law framed for consideration of this Court which merits reproduction:-
"i)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents' authorities deserve to be directed to verify the date of birth of the petitioner as per academic records, along with the copies of the birth certificate and passport of the petitioner and not his academic record alone?"
This petition is wholly misconceived, misdirected and manifestly devoid of any merit. I am sorry to say, the bar owes a duty to the Court to CWP No.2539 of 2013 4 carefully screen matters in chambers before filing such litigation and to exercise due care and restraint in pleadings as they hold the exalted status of Officers of the Court. I reluctantly hesitate to impose costs.
Dismissed.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 6.2.2013 MFK