# Narendra Pal Singh and Anr v. State of U.P. and Ors - **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1256 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-08-02 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33172 of 2013 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-pal-singh-and-anr-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42679 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Art.-226- Protection of married couple-date of birth of girl as stated by petitioner-15.02.95-as per report date of birth shown 15.12.96-as per record of boarddate of birth found mentioned as 15.12.96certificate produced by petitioner being forged document-petition dismissed with cost of rs. 25000/-further direction to lodge FIR. Held: Para-13&14 ## Text 1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES condition. It was categorically indicated that the institution imparting education below or higher than Class 6 to 8 would not be eligible to apply. As a result of the above, some institutions were completely excluded from the grant in aid list scheme inasmuch as a decision had been taken by the State Government not to provide grant in aid to educational institutions of Junior High School after their upgradation as High School or Intermediate College and an exception was made in respect of the institutions, which had been receiving grant in aid for their Junior High Schools Sections, despite the fact that the said institution had been upgraded. In the writ petition, Condition No. 2(iii) and Condition No. 12 of the Government Order dated 7th September, 2006 were challenged. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the aforesaid two conditions being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The decision of the learned Single Judge has been upheld in the Special Appeal. The State Government filed Appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and the order of the Division Bench in Special Appeal. In the said decision, it has been held that when one thousand educational institutions were to be provided such benefit, non-inclusion of the respondent institutions from being considered for the grant in aid for the Junior High School Sections is wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained, merely because on account of the cut off date of grant of recognition. They had not been brought within the ambit of grant in aid scheme on account of their seniority position, namely, upgradation to the High School. The Apex Court has also considered Section 13-A inserted in 1978 Act, which provides assistance to those institutions, which had already been covered by the grant in aid scheme. The aforesaid position of law is only beneficial for the limited purpose that even after upgradation to the High School, Junior High Schools were held entitled for the benefit of the grant in aid. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the salary to the staff of the Junior High School of the petitioner-institution, who were duly appointed till the institution may come within the purview of 1971 Act. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33172 of 2013 Narendra Pal Singh and Anr. .Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rajesh Kumar Pal Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Garun Pal Singh Constitution of India, Art.-226- Protection of married couple-date of birth of girl as stated by petitioner-15.02.95-as per report date of birth shown 15.12.96-as per record of boarddate of birth found mentioned as 15.12.96certificate produced by petitioner being forged document-petition dismissed with cost of rs. 25000/-further direction to lodge FIR. Held: Para-13&14 13. The Deputy Secretary, U.P. Board who has produced record on examining the original certificate as produced by learned counsel for the petitioners states that the certificate is not genuine as there is a colour difference and the paper used therein is not stout enough. 3 All] Narendra Pal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 1257 14. In view of the above, the original certificate produced by learned counsel for the petitioners and the copy as annexed with the writ petition is apparently forged and fictitious which has been filed to deceive the Court so as to obtain favourable order. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the petitions and learned Standing counsel for the respondents. Sri Garun Pal Singh has appeared for respondent no. 4. 2. In the petition it has been stated that the petitioners have married on 11.5.2013 at Radha Rani Mandir, Mathura. Since the petitioners have married against the wishes of their parents, the respondents especially the parents of petitioner no. 2 are interfering in their married life and there is danger to their life and liberty. Therefore, in the petition they have prayed for a direction commending the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful matrimonial life and to provide security to them. 3. The petition is supported by the affidavit of petitioner no. 1. 4. In paragraph 4 of the petition it has been stated that the date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is 15.2.1995 and in support thereof photo copy of the certificate cum mark sheet of the High School examination 2012 of petitioner no. 2 dated 8th June 2012 has been filed wherein her date of birth has been mentioned as 15.2.1995 both in words and number. 5. On the last occasion ie. 30.7.2013 Sri Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 had produced a photocopy of the High School certificate of petitioner no. 2 which disclosed her date of birth as 15.12.1996. 6. Thus, there was a clear discrepancy in the date of birth of petitioner no. 2 as per the certificates produced. 7. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to produce the original certificate of the photocopy which was enclosed with the petition. The original certificate was readily produced by the counsel and it was taken on record. 8. The original as produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners do disclose the date of birth of the petitioner no. 2 as 15.2.1995. 9. In view of the discrepancy in the date of birth in two certificates produced by the parties, the Secretary of the High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Board, Allahabad was required to send the complete records relating to the petitioner no. 2 who had appeared in the High School examination 2012 from the ASS Inter College, Mathura and through some competent officer and to present it before Court. 10. In pursuance to the said order, an assistant and the Deputy Secretary of the U.P. Board along with the record, have attended the Court. 11. The record of the Board reveals that petitioner no. 2 Hema, daughter of Shiv Charan and Bhoodevi with Roll No. 0267507 had appeared in the High School examination 2012 as a student of ASS Inter College Kheri Ghari, Mathura and was issued certificate bearing serial no. 0528602 which contains her date of birth as 15.12.1996. 1258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 12. The record of the Board establishes that the date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is 15.12.1996 and that no certificate to her was issued mentioning her date of birth as 15.2.1995. 13. The Deputy Secretary, U.P. Board who has produced record on examining the original certificate as produced by learned counsel for the petitioners states that the certificate is not genuine as there is a colour difference and the paper used therein is not stout enough. 14. In view of the above, the original certificate produced by learned counsel for the petitioners and the copy as annexed with the writ petition is apparently forged and fictitious which has been filed to deceive the Court so as to obtain favourable order. 15. Accordingly, as the date of birth of petitioner no. 2 has been established to be 15.12.1996 she is not of a marriageable age and is a minor. Her marriage with petitioner no. 1 solemnized on 11.5.2013 is void in view of Section 5 (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 16. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is not only dismissed but the Secretary, High School and Inter Medicate Examination Board U.P., Allahabad is directed to lodge a criminal complaint/FIR against the petitioners for fabricating a false and fictitious certificate of the Board and to ensure that the investigation thereof reaches its logical conclusion. The Secretary of the U.P. Board is further directed to take effective steps ensuring that in future no false and fictitious certificate of the Board is manufactured and is used to abuse the process of the Court. 17. The petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioners within two weeks with the District Magistrate, Mathura, failing which the Collector would ensure the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue. 18. The original record produced is permitted to be returned. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.09.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34441 of 1996 Veer Singh ...Petitioner Versus Dy. Registrar Coop. Societies & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.B.L. Gour Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Abhishek Mishra, Sri K.N. Mishra U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965Regulation 85- Principle of Natural Justicedismissal order-without affording opportunity of oral hearing-even if employee failed to participate in disciplinary proceeding-employer bound to proved the charges by oral and documentary evidenceorder-unsustainable quashed. Held: Para-24 Adverting to the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the services of petitioner is governed by Regulations 1975. As the procedure laid down in Regulation 85 thereof was not followed inasmuch as no oral inquiry, as prescribed under Regulation 85 was not held, the impugned order cannot sustain and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. (B)Disciplinary Authority- being quasijudicial officer-bound to act as an independent officer-to find truth.