# Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 733
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-09-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19718 of 2000
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-chandra-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41126
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

S.C.

U.P.
Recruitment
to
Services
(Determination of Date of Birth) Rules
1974-Rule-2-Date of Birth-recorded in
service
book
initially-can
not
be
changed-school certificate below class
10-held-not authentic document.

Held: Para 8

Whatever may be basis of first entry of
date of birth in the service book,
Subsequently it cannot be changed
unless there is some rule in that regard
and representation is made promptly for,
change of date of birth. Petitioner did
not make any representation. The campclerk got the second entry of 10.10.1948
made in the service book after few
months of the first entry, which was not
permissible.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2006 SC-2157 relied on.

## Text

3 All] Ram Chandra V. State of U.P. and others
733
161 of the Act subject to the condition
that the land so received in exchange shall
be utilized for the same public purpose for
which the land given in exchange was
being used

17. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, impugned order passed by
the Board of Revenue dated 22.3.1993
refusing the exchange cannot be sustained
and is hereby quashed and that of
Additional
Commissioner
dated
30.7.1992 stands affirmed.

18. The writ petition stands allowed.

However,
in
the
facts
and
circumstances, there shall be no order as
to costs.

 Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19718 of 2000

Ram Chandra

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.N. Shukla
Sri R.A. Verma
Sri Yogesh Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
Recruitment
to
Services
(Determination of Date of Birth) Rules
1974-Rule-2-Date of Birth-recorded in
service
book
initially-can
not
be
changed-school certificate below class
10-held-not authentic document.

Held: Para 8

Whatever may be basis of first entry of
date of birth in the service book,
Subsequently it cannot be changed
unless there is some rule in that regard
and representation is made promptly for,
change of date of birth. Petitioner did
not make any representation. The campclerk got the second entry of 10.10.1948
made in the service book after few
months of the first entry, which was not
permissible.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2006 SC-2157 relied on.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1. The question to be decided in this
writ petition is as to whether one of the
two dates of birth of petitioner as entered
in his service book i.e. 10.10.1948 was
rightly scored off? The age of retirement
of Class of employees to which petitioner
belongs is 60 years. According to the
petitioner he should have been permitted
to continue in service until 10.10.2008,
however, he was wrongly retired on
1.8.1998. Original service book was
summoned and perused by the court.
Photostat copy of the first page of original
service book was directed to be filed by
learned standing counsel who has filed the
said photostat copy. On the first page of
the service book, certificate issued by
C.M.O dated 1.8.1986 was annexed.
Photocopy of the said certificate has also
been filed. These two copies have also
been filed along with other affidavits. The
certificate was issued under Rule 10 of
Fundamental Rules on the proforma given
thereunder. The title of the certificate was
Certificate of Fitness for government
servants. In the certificate which was on
the printed proforma as prescribed by
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Rule 10 of Fundamental Rules, the last
sentence is to the following effect. The
candidates age according to his own
statement is 48 years and by appearance
about forty eight years.

2. In the service book of the
petitioner the entry which was scored off
was to the effect that according to the
School
certificate
date
of birth
is
10.10.1948. This entry was made against
Item No.5 relating to date of birth.
Against
the
said
column
first
the
following entry was made "1.8.1986 Ko
48 Varsh" (48 years on 1.8.1986).

3. Thereafter the entry of 10.10.1948
was written. Apparently the first entry
was made on the basis of certificate
granted by C.M.O. which was also
attached to page 1 of the service book.
Learned standing counsel also stated that
the said entry was made in pursuance of
and on the basis of certificate issued by
the C.M.O.

4. In this writ petition, I passed an
order on 2.4.2003 (on separate sheet).
Through the said order, I directed the
Executive Engineer U.P.P.W.D Allahabad
to decide the question as to what was the
position of entry of date of birth in the
service book when it was prepared and
who scored off the figure 10.10.1948 and
under what circumstances. Thereafter,
enquiry was conducted and copy of
enquiry report was filed along with
supplementary
affidavit
sworn
on
23.10.2003. The enquiry report runs into
18 pages, each page containing about 35
lines. Enquiry report bears the date
28.6.2003 and signatures of Executive
Engineer
Provincial
Division
PWD
Allahabad.

5. The Executive Engineer, who has
given the report dated 28.06.2003 has
done an excellent job. The report is at par
with the judgment of a Competent
Judicial Officer. About 25 concerned
Officers/ Officials, who could have any
knowledge
of
the
facts
regarding
preparation of the service books and
scoring off one of the entries against date
of birth of petitioner were examined by
the Executive Engineer. The statements
have meticulously been examined. The
Executive
Engineer
asked
precise,
searching
questions
from
the
officers/officials, who were called by him.
Sri Dileep Kumar, Assistant Engineer
gave report that in 1994, he scored off the
entry of 10.10.1948 from the service book
of the petitioner. Sri Dileep Kumar further
stated that the petitioner and the then
camp-clerk (shivir Iipik) tried to persuade
him to score off other entry, i.e.
"01.08.1986 ko 48 varsh" Sri Dileep
Kumar further stated that after scoring off
the entry of 10.10.1948, he put his initials
thereupon. Several concerned officers and
officials stated that when service book
was prepared, Sri Shitla Prasad was the
concerned clerk and the service book was
prepared by him and entries were in his
handwriting. Accordingly, statement of
Sri Shitla Prasad was also recorded on
24.06.2003, which is given on Page-14 of
the report. Sri Shitla Prasad categorically
stated that entries in the service book of
the petitioner were made by him on the
direction/dictation
of
camp
clerk-Sri
Krishan Chand. It was further stated by
Shitla Prasad that in the service book of
petitioner, entries against item No.1 to 7
were in his handwriting but the entries
were made on the direction of Sri Krishan
Chand and petitioner was also present and
Sri Krishan Chand was dictating the
entries after asking and seeking relevant
3 All] Ram Chandra V. State of U.P. and others
735
information from the petitioner. Sri Shitla
Prasad categorically stated that he made
the entry of "01.08.1986 ko 48 varsh" at
the time of preparation of service book
and thereafter the second entry of
10.10.1948 according to the school
certificate was written by him after two to
three months and the said entry was also
made by him on the direction of campclerk.

6. From the above, it is quite clear
that first entry of "01.08.1986 ko 48
varsh" was made in the service book and
after few months, the other entry "school
certificate ke anusar 10. 10. 1948" was
made. The alleged school certificate was
obtained on 02.08.1986, i.e. one day after
the report of C.M.O. Copy of that
certificate is Annexure-1 to the writ
petition, which shows that petitioner
passed Class-V and left the school on
19.05.1962. Firstly, no reason has been
given for obtaining the certificate so late
and secondly, Supreme Court in AIR
2006 SC 2157 "Ravinder Singh Gorkhi
v. State of U.P." has held that school
certificate below standard of Class-X in
respect of date of birth is not an authentic
document particularly when it has not
been issued at the time when the person
concerned left the school. Moreover, the
fact that it was obtained on the next date
on which C.M.O. gave the certificate
makes it unbelievable and manufactured
document.

7. It is correct that under Rule-10 of
Fundamental Rules, C.M.O. is required to
give certificate of fitness and not
certificate in respect of age. Moreover, in
the certificate, C.M.O. has not determined
the age. He has only mentioned that
petitioner stated that his age was 48 years
and by appearance also he looked about
48 years of age.

8. Whatever may be basis of first
entry of date of birth in the service book,
Subsequently it cannot be changed unless
there is some rule in that regard and
representation is made promptly for,
change of date of birth. Petitioner did not
make any representation. The camp-clerk
got the second entry of 10.10.1948 made
in the service book after few months of
the first entry, which was not permissible.
The Executive Engineer in his report has
also mentioned that even the school,
which had allegedly issued the certificate
to the petitioner, was contacted by him
but the said school was found locked. The
Executive Engineer has also referred to
U.P.
Recruitment
to
Services
(Determination of Date of Birth) Rules,
1974, according to which in case an
employee has not passed Class-X, the
date of birth entered in the service book at
the time of entry in the service book
should be deemed to be final and no
application or representation for change
of the said date of birth would be
entertained. Rule-2 of the said Rules is
quoted below:-

"[2. Determination of correct date of
birth or age.- The date of birth a
Government servant as recorded in the
certificate of his having passed the High
School or equivalent examination at the
time of his entry into the Government
service or where a Government servant
has not passed any such examinations
aforesaid or has passed such examination
after joining the service, the date of birth
or the age recorded in his service book at
the time of his entry into the government
service shall be deemed to be his correct
date of birth or age, as the case may be,
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
for all purposes in relation of his service,
including
eligibility
for
promotion,
superannuation, premature retirement or
retirement benefits, and no application or
representation shall be entertained for
correction of such date of age In any
circumstances whatsoever.]

9. I fully agree with the finding
recorded by the Executive Engineer. It is
more than clear that the first entry in the
service book was "01.08.1986 ko 48
varsh..' Subsequent entry was made after
two or three months of the first entry and
that also on the direction of camp-clerk,
which
was
illegal
and
utterly
unauthorized. The subsequent entry was,
therefore, rightly scored off.

10. Accordingly, there is no merit in
the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.

11. Office is directed to supply a
copy of this judgment free of cost to Sri
S.P. Mishra, learned standing counsel,
within a week.
 Petition Dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.08.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 20017 of
2007

Surendra Kumar and others ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri S.C. Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482Summoning
Order-passed
without
perusing case Diary as well as final
report-treating the protest petition as
Complaint-without recording statement
of witnesses-held-magistrate committed
manifest error-order impugned can not
sustain.

Held: Para 4

But in the present case for passing any
order in respect of the conclusion drawn
by the I.O. The learned Magistrate has
not perused case diary for which he was
under obligation to do so, whereas the
protest petition has been treated as a
complaint straightway, it is not proper.
The learned Magistrate has committed a
manifest error by adopting such a
procedure, the learned Magistrate has
again committed the manifest error in
passing the impugned order without
recording the statement of the witnesses
under section 202 Cr.P.C. The prescribed
procedure for taking the cognizance in a
complaint case has not been followed.
The impugned order dated 26.6.2007 is
illegal and is liable to be set aside.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A.

2. This application has been filed
with a prayer to quash the order dated
26.6.2007 passed by learned A.C.J.M,
Bhadoi in Criminal case No. 171 of 2005
whereby the learned Magistrate concerned
has taken the cognizance and summoned
the applicant to face the trial for the
offence punishable under sections 147,
323, 504, 506, 452 IPC. It is contended by
learned counsel for the applicant that O.P.
No. 2 Smt. Saraswati Devi lodged the
F.I.R. in case crime No. 46 of 2005 under
sections 147,323,504, 506,452 IPC P:S.
Suriyawan, District Sant Ravidas Nagar