# Mohd. Maruf Ahamad v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 138
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-02-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5110 of 2010
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-maruf-ahamad-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41508
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226Cancellation of appointment-dated of
birth recorded in High School-heldconclusive
proof-unless
altered
on
modified by the Board-date of birth as
recorded in school register-on basis of
information of the Principal of institution
the authorities came to the conclusion
that on the date of advertisement-age of
petitioner was less 7 days than 20 yearswithout giving any opportunity without
notice
to
the
petitioner-held-order
impugned on erroneous assumption can
not sustain.

Held: Para 6

Further it is evident that the impugned
order has been passed relying on the
information given by the Principal of the
institution
on
19.11.2009.
The
said
information was received and the order
was
passed
without
putting
the
petitioner to notice or calling upon him
to rebut the said contention. In this view
of the matter, the impugned order is also
invalid as being in violation of principles
of natural justice.
1 All] Mohd. Maruf Ahamad V. State of U.P. and others
139

## Text

138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
allotment/lease
and
after
giving
opportunity of hearing to him may cancel
the same. In the event the authority feels
otherwise and the involvement of the
allottee is not found and the needle of
suspension is upon some employee/officer
action it must take appropriate action first
against
such
employee/officer
and
simultaneously if considered proper for
cancellation of allotment/lease.

20. In view of above, it is held that
the period of limitation prescribed under
Section 198(6) of the Act for issuance of
notice before cancellation of the allotment
of the land/lease is applicable even to suo
motu proceedings. However, the Collector
is not forbidden to initiate proceedings for
cancellation even after the expiry of
limitation prescribed, provided he has
reason to believe that the allotment is
likely to vitiate on account of fraud but in
exercise of such power has to act with
great circumspection as observed above
and not in a routine or a causal manner.

21. In the facts of present case and
circumstances that the Collector has
expressed satisfaction with regard to
fraud, I am not inclined to interfere with
the orders passed and the writ petition is
disposed of accordingly with liberty to the
collector to proceed in the matter, if
considered proper, in accordance with law
keeping
in
mind
the
directions/observations made above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5110 of 2010

Mohd. Maruf Ahamad
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.D. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Art.
226Cancellation of appointment-dated of
birth recorded in High School-heldconclusive
proof-unless
altered
on
modified by the Board-date of birth as
recorded in school register-on basis of
information of the Principal of institution
the authorities came to the conclusion
that on the date of advertisement-age of
petitioner was less 7 days than 20 yearswithout giving any opportunity without
notice
to
the
petitioner-held-order
impugned on erroneous assumption can
not sustain.

Held: Para 6

Further it is evident that the impugned
order has been passed relying on the
information given by the Principal of the
institution
on
19.11.2009.
The
said
information was received and the order
was
passed
without
putting
the
petitioner to notice or calling upon him
to rebut the said contention. In this view
of the matter, the impugned order is also
invalid as being in violation of principles
of natural justice.
1 All] Mohd. Maruf Ahamad V. State of U.P. and others
139
(Delivered by Hon'ble A. P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioner contends that he
could not have been eliminated from his
service inasmuch as he was fully eligible
qualified and he had appeared in the
selections which were held in the year
2006.

3. From a perusal of the facts on
record, it is evident that on an earlier
occasion, the claim of the petitioner had
been non-suited on account of an
incorrect inquiry having been made with
regard to the genuineness of the High
School Certificate of the petitioner. The
said claim was allowed by this Court vide
order dated 9.7.2009 passed in Writ
Petition No.59329 of 2007 where after the
claim of the petitioner was re-examined
and it is evident that the last date of the
application under the Advertisement was
30.8.2005
and
the
maximum
age
permissible under the Advertisement was
20 years as on 1.7.2005. The petitioner's
date of birth, according to the High
School Certificate, is 10.7.1985. In view
of the age limit as prescribed in the
Advertisement, the petitioner was 9 days
less than 20 years and, therefore, the
claim of the petitioner appears to have
been
incorrectly
assessed
by
the
respondents - authorities.

4. The impugned order records that
some information was received from the
Principal of the institution on 19.11.2009
and on the strength thereof, it is alleged
that the petitioner's date of birth is
1.4.1987.

5. It is by now well settled by a
series of decisions that the date of birth as
recorded in the matriculation examination
is conclusive proof unless the same is
demolished by some other material that
too even by the competent authority. In
the instant case, the date of birth of the
petitioner as recorded in the High School
and as admitted to the respondents is
10.7.1985. Any alteration in the date of
birth of the High School Certificate can
be
done
in
accordance
with
the
regulations
framed
under
the
U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In the
event any other date is recorded in the
institution, the same would not be
applicable in the case of the petitioner
once his date of birth has been initially
recorded as 10.7.1985 in the High School
Certificate. The authorities have to raise a
presumption in favour of the date of birth
as recorded in the High School Certificate
and not on the basis of any information
received from the institution or the
Principal of the institution.

6. Further it is evident that the
impugned order has been passed relying
on the information given by the Principal
of the institution on 19.11.2009. The said
information was received and the order
was passed without putting the petitioner
to notice or calling upon him to rebut the
said contention. In this view of the matter,
the impugned order is also invalid as
being in violation of principles of natural
justice.

7. Learned Standing Counsel could
not successfully dispute the said position.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned order dated
21.1.2009,
which
proceeds
on
an
erroneous assumption of law, is hereby
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
quashed without calling for any counteraffidavit. The authority shall pass a fresh
order in the light of the observations made
herein above within 3 weeks from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order before him.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6277 of 2010

Rama Shankar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh
C.S.C.

Civil Services Regulation-Regulation 59
(8)-Revocation
of
suspension
orderpetitioner
after
grant
of
Bail-can
approach
before
the
disciplinary
authority for revocation of suspension
order after alter grant of Bail.

Held: Para 6

Sub-Regulation
5
of
Regulation
59
clearly provides for the power to the
authority to revoke the suspension order
in any of the contingency including the
contingencies of deemed suspension. It
is, therefore, clear under the Rules itself
that there is a provision of deemed
suspension
but
simultaneously
the
authority has been given the discretion
to revoke such deemed suspension.
Case law discussed:
(1998) 8 SCC 578.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioner is a Junior
Assistant with the respondent - NOIDA.
He was taken into custody on account of
being involved in a criminal case and was
put behind bars. The petitioner moved an
application before the authority for
revoking the suspension order after his
release from detention. Having failed to
get any relief, he has filed this writ
petition for quashing of the suspension
order dated 20.8.2007 on the ground that
the Service Regulations 1981 clearly
mandate
the
authorities
to
pass
appropriate orders in such a situation.

3. Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai, learned
counsel for the petitioner, has relied on
the decision of this Court in the case of
Radhey Shyam Vs. The Chairman,
NOIDA, and another, Writ Petition
No.17132 of 2002, decided on 25.4.2002
and the subsequent decision in relation to
the same employee in Writ Petition
No.42220 of 2002, decided on 30.9.2002.
Sri Bajpai, on the strength of the said
decisions, contends that the respondent -
authority
has
to
consider
the
representation of the petitioner, apply its
mind and pass a reasoned order for either
accepting or rejecting the request of the
petitioner. He submits that even though
under the Regulations, the petitioner will
be deemed to have been suspended, yet
the respondents still continue to enjoy the
power to revoke the same and which
power has to be exercised in accordance
with the Regulations aforesaid.

4. Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, on
the
other
hand,
contends
that
the