Himachal Pradesh High Court
Resident Of Village Manwana vs Satish Kumar Mittal And on 16 September, 2022
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 810 OF 2021
Between
MINTA DEVI WIFE OF LATE SH.RAVI KUMAR
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANWANA, POST
OFFICE KHUDLA, TEHSIL BALDWARA, DISTT.
MANDI HP PRESENTLY POSTED AS CLASS-IV
EMPLOYEE IN GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY
SCHOOL, KHANOT, DISTRICT MANDI H.P.
.....PETITIONER
(BY MR. NEEL KAMAL SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
EDUCATION TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-2
2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION
MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI H.P.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SEEMA SHARMA, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for order this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner, by way of instant petition, has approached this Court seeking direction to respondents to rectify her date of birth in ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2022 20:00:55 :::CIS CWP No. 810 of 2021 service record by correcting the same as 11.2.1966 in place 28.10.1964.
2 Petitioner was appointed as part time Water Carrier with .
respondents-department on 28.8.2002. Her services were regularized on 7.10.2017. At the time of appointment of petitioner as part time Water Carrier, her date of birth was recorded as 28.8.1964 in service record. It is the claim of petitioner that said date was recorded on the basis of statement made by her father.
3 Undisputedly, respondent No. 3 Deputy Director Higher Education Mandi issued a letter dated 24.8.2020 (Annexure P-2), in furtherance of direction dated 13.8.2020 issued by the Director of Higher Education for submitting date of birth record, by employees having qualification less than matric, for comparison with Parivar Register as well as service record by taking into consideration after comparing with their younger and elder brothers and sisters, if any.
4 In response to aforesaid communication, petitioner obtained the copy of Parivar Register from concerned Gram Panchayat wherein against the name of petitioner it was found to have been mentioned that her age on 11.2.1968 was two years, meaning thereby that she was born on 11.2.1966.
5 Petitioner submitted the aforesaid copy of Parivar Register to respondent No.3, but respondent No.3 did not correct her ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2022 20:00:55 :::CIS CWP No. 810 of 2021 date of birth despite filing an affidavit sworn by her, stating therein that her date of birth was 11.2.1966 but not 28.10.1964. For omission on the part of respondents to correct the date of birth of .
petitioner, petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.10.2020, Annexure P-4, to respondent No.3 Deputy Director for rectifying her date of birth.
6 In response, it has been submitted by respondent State/department that petitioner was appointed on 28.8.2002 as part time Water Carrier and her services were upgraded as daily wager on 26.11.2012 and her service book, on her appointment as daily wager, was maintained by Block Elementary Education Officer, Gopalpur-II, District Mandi, wherein her date of birth has been recorded as 28.10.1964 on the basis of School Leaving Certificate provided by petitioner at the time of her appointment as part time Water Carrier as well as daily wager. Further that, petitioner has entered in Government service about 18 years back from the date of her request for rectification of her date of birth in service record and such belated request cannot be entertained in view of specific provisions of Rule 7.1 of HPFR Vol-I-1971.
7 It has been further submitted that from the date of appointment of petitioner as daily wager, there is delay of 8 years for making request for correction in the date of birth of petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2022 20:00:55 :::CIS CWP No. 810 of 2021 and, therefore, petitioner's request at this belated stage cannot be acceded to, that too on the basis of document which is vague in nature and does not disclose any specific date of birth of the .
petitioner.
8 To substantiate the plea, as taken in reply, reliance has been placed on State of Haryana vs. Satish Kumar Mittal and another, reported in (2010)9 SCC 337; State of UP vs. Shiv Narayan Upadhyaya, reported in (2005)6 SCC 49; and also judgment dated 7th January, 2022 passed by this Court in CWP No. 4387 of 2020 titled Bala Ram vs. State of HP.
9 It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that respondents-department initiated an inquiry by issuing communications dated 13.8.2020 and 24.8.2020 and petitioner, in response thereto, submitted the documents for correction of her date of birth in record and, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner has approached the department for rectification of date of birth at belated stage.
10 Respondents were also directed to produce the record on the basis of which defence in reply has been set up. Record has been produced by respondents. Photocopy of relevant record i.e. extract of service book of petitioner, copy of School Leaving Certificate dated 6.3.2002 submitted by petitioner to the ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2022 20:00:55 :::CIS CWP No. 810 of 2021 Department at the time of first appointment as Water Carrier, copy of office order dated 7.10.2017 issued by Deputy Director of Higher Education Mandi, copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner, copy of School .
Leaving Certificate of petitioner dated 14.9.2022 indicating the date of birth of petitioner as 28.10.1964, have been placed on record.
11 At the time of first appointment, petitioner herself submitted copy of School Leaving Certificate wherein her date of birth has been depicted as 28.10.1964, on the basis of which the same entry has been made in service record.
12 At the time of regularization of petitioner, Office Order dated 7.10.2017 was issued. In the said order also, date of birth of petitioner is depicted as 28.10.1964, which was never disputed or assailed by petitioner. In copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner, her year of birth has been mentioned as 1964. Respondents have also placed on record the copy of School Leaving Certificate of petitioner issued on 14.9.2022 wherein her date of birth has been mentioned as 28.10.1964.
13 Copy of Parivar Register, placed on record, which has also been submitted to the department for correction of date of birth depicts that there is entry in it stating that petitioner was two years old on 11.2.1968 but it does not depict exact date of birth of petitioner. Who made this entry and on what basis this entry was ::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2022 20:00:55 :::CIS CWP No. 810 of 2021 made and when it was made is not clear. It appears that this entry has been made on the basis of speculation or assumption. It appears that entry of petitioner as well as her younger brother was .
made on one and same day, i.e. on 11.2.1968, but not on the basis of exact information. Whereas, another document, i.e. School Leaving, which has also been submitted by petitioner herself to the department, speaks about exact date of birth of petitioner and said date of birth was reflected in service record as well as regularization order of petitioner. In the petition, it has been claimed that earlier the date of birth was recorded in service record or at the time of her appointment as part time Water Carrier on the basis of information supplied by her father but it does not appear to be correct as date of birth of petitioner has been recorded on the basis of School Leaving Certificate submitted by her in the department. School Leaving Certificate is depicting exact date of birth, whereas entries in Parivar Register with respect to date of birth are vague and uncertain in nature.
14 Petitioner has not assailed entry of her date of birth in School Leaving Certificate. Therefor, there are two documents on record for determining date of birth of petitioner. Both have been produced by the petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2022 20:00:55 :::CIS CWP No. 810 of 202115 An entry recorded in service book on the basis of authentic document, having specific date of birth, cannot be replaced by a vague entry made in another document, authenticity .
of entries made wherein is doubtful.
16 Without going into the question that two years period for making request with respect to date of birth in service record would start from appointment of petitioner as part time Water Carrier or date of conversion of her service as daily wager or her regularization but for nature of document on the basis of which rectification is being sought, I do not find any merit in the case of petitioner for correcting her date of birth on the basis of a vague and uncertain document by replacing an entry of date of birth made on the basis of specific authentic and reliable document having exact date of birth of petitioner especially when said document was submitted to the department by petitioner herself.
The present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
( Vivek Singh Thakur )
September 16, 2022(MS) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 21/09/2022 20:00:55 :::CIS