# Smt. Shanti Devi v. Principal, Smt. Sukhdevi Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 856
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 600 of 2003
- **Bench:** Tarun Chatterjee, C.J. Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shanti-devi-v-principal-smt-sukhdevi-uchchatar-madhyamik-vidyalaya-and-40216
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri R.B. Singhal
Sri Devendra Kumar
S.C.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Smt. Shanti Devi V. Principal, Smt. Sukhdevi Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and others
857
Constitution of India, Article 226-Service
Law- correction in date of birth-shown in
service book- verified at least 10 timesheld-not permissible at belated stage of
retirement.

Held - Para 5

It is an admitted position that the date
of birth of the appellant was entered in
the service book as 27.10.1940 at the
time
of
her
entry
in
service.
Subsequently this date of birth in the
service records was verified by her at
least ten times. Such being the position
it was not open for the appellant to claim
a different date of birth just at the time
of her retirement. The enquiry report
which the learned counsel for the
appellant
has
relied
on
had
been
considered by the learned Judge in the
impugned judgment and it was noted
that the District Inspector of Schools,
Etawah while making an enquiry found
that the date of birth was 27.10.1946. In
our view the learned Judge is fully
justified in rejecting the writ-application.

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
about the fake order from Allahabad, the
principal seat of the High Court and on
the basis thereof a subsequent direction
has been obtained from the Lucknow
Bench of the same High Court. The first
order being non-existent has to be
declared to be a bogus one. The second
order made on the basis of the first order
has to be set aside as having been made
on the basis of misrepresentation. We are
alive to the situation that the persons who
have been taken admission on the basis of
the MBBS results are not before us. The
circumstances in which such benefit has
been taken by the candidates concerned
do not justify attraction of the application
of rules of natural justice of being
provided an opportunity to be heard."

23. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties. I find that in view of the
serious allegations against the selection
grade doubt has been raised with regard to
the selection, appointment and alleged
involvement of forgery on the part of the
petitioners, although the order dated
20.11.1998 is not legally sustainable for
lack of providing opportunity of natural
hearing therefore, it is directed that before
the petitioner is permitted to join the post
a decision is to be taken by the competent
authority on issues raised after giving
proper opportunity to the petitioner. In
view of the above I direct the Chief
Engineer of Anusandhan Avam Niyojan,
Jal Sansadhan Prakhand, Varanasi to issue
a notice to the petitioner regarding the
allegation against the selection and
alleged forgery in the appointment and
after considering the records, documents
and earlier enquiry and explanation and
material submitted by the petitioner take a
proper decision in the matter. If the
petitioner wants oral hearing he may be
allowed to do so and if petitioner gives
only written statement submission that
would be treated to be sufficient that he
has been heard properly. The petitioner's
continuance to the post and providing
other benefits will depend upon the
decision to be taken by the Chief
Engineer of the above department. The
Chief Engineer will issue proper notice to
the petitioner within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this judgment and after
receiving
the
explanation
from
the
petitioner after hearing the petitioner,
after providing opportunity of hearing or
after considering the written submission
of the petitioner shall pass final order
within a period of six months from today.

With these observations the order
dated 20.11.1998 is set aside and with the
above observations and directions the writ
petition is finally disposed of.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN CHATTERJEE, C.J.
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 600 of 2003

Smt. Shanti Devi

...Petitioner
Versus
Principal,
Smt.
Sukhdevi
Balika
Uchchattar
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya,
Etawah and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Gajendra Pratap
Sri A.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.B. Singhal
Sri Devendra Kumar
S.C.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Smt. Shanti Devi V. Principal, Smt. Sukhdevi Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and others
857
Constitution of India, Article 226-Service
Law- correction in date of birth-shown in
service book- verified at least 10 timesheld-not permissible at belated stage of
retirement.

Held - Para 5

It is an admitted position that the date
of birth of the appellant was entered in
the service book as 27.10.1940 at the
time
of
her
entry
in
service.
Subsequently this date of birth in the
service records was verified by her at
least ten times. Such being the position
it was not open for the appellant to claim
a different date of birth just at the time
of her retirement. The enquiry report
which the learned counsel for the
appellant
has
relied
on
had
been
considered by the learned Judge in the
impugned judgment and it was noted
that the District Inspector of Schools,
Etawah while making an enquiry found
that the date of birth was 27.10.1946. In
our view the learned Judge is fully
justified in rejecting the writ-application.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Chatterjee, C.J.)

1. By consent of parties this Special
Appeal is treated as on day's list and
taken up for hearing.

2. This is an appeal from a judgment
and order of a learned Judge of this Court
in a writ petition, being Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 50763 of 2000, by which the
writ-application of the appellant was
rejected which was moved for correction
of date of birth in her service records.

3. The appellant joined the service
as a class IV employee and served for
several years. It is not in dispute that in
the service record of the appellant, her
date of birth was shown as 27.10.1940
and the signature of the appellant was also
made on the service book. Subsequent to
the entry of the writ petitioner-appellant
in the employment, her date of birth was
verified on several dates and the writ
petitioner-appellant signed and verified
her date of birth as 27.10.1940. Just
before her retirement, the writ petitionerappellant produced a certificate of the
Gram Pradhan showing that her date of
birth was 27.10.1946 and not 27.10.1940.
When an enquiry was held by the District
Inspector of Schools, Etawah, the relevant
documents for the purposes of proving the
date of birth were not produced and,
therefore,
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools, Etawah had arrived at a
conclusion that her date of birth was
27.10.1946 as claimed by the writpetitioner-appellant and not 27.10.1940.
The learned Judge while rejecting the
writ-application came to the conclusion of
fact that since the writ-petitioner herself
has given her date of birth as 27.10.1940
which was verified by her several times
subsequently, it is not open for the writpetitioner to say at the time of her
retirement or just before that, that her date
of
birth
was
27.10.1946
and
not
27.10.1940. Feeling aggrieved against the
judgment and order of the learned Judge,
this appeal has been preferred.

4. We have heard Sri Gajendra
Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Sri R.B. Singhal, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
We have also carefully examined the
order passed by the learned Judge and the
material available on the record.

5. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties we are of the view that in
the facts and circumstances of the case
there is no ground for us to interfere with
the order of the learned Judge. Admittedly
at the time of entry of the appellant in
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
service, she herself had given here date of
birth as 27.10.1940 and not 27.10.1946.
In fact, during her service career she had
verified the same date of birth at least ten
times. Just before her retirement this
correction of date of birth was asked for
by the writ-petitioner-appellant on the
basis of an enquiry report submitted by
the District Inspector of Schools, Etawah.
Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned counsel for
the appellant, however, submitted that the
learned Judge was not justified in
rejecting the writ-application without
considering the report submitted by the
Enquiry Officer, i.e., District Inspector of
Schools,
Etawah
who
came
to
a
conclusion of fact that the date of birth of
the petitioner-appellant was 27.10.1946
and not 27.10.1940. We are unable to
accept this contention of Sri Gajendra
Pratap, learned counsel for the appellant.
As noted earlier it is an admitted position
that the date of birth of the appellant was
entered in the service book as 27.10.1940
at the time of her entry in service.
Subsequently this date of birth in the
service records was verified by here at
least ten times. Such being the position it
was not open for the appellant to claim a
different date of birth just at the time of
her retirement. The enquiry report which
the learned counsel for the appellant has
relied on had been considered by the
learned Judge in the impugned judgment
and it was noted that the District Inspector
of Schools, Etawah while making an
enquiry found that the date of birth was
27.10.1946. In our view the learned Judge
is fully justified in rejecting the writapplication as we find that the said
conclusion of fact, without considering
the service record and the verification
made on different dates by the petitionerappellant, cannot be relied on for the
purposes of coming to a finding of fact as
to whether the date of birth of the
appellant was 27.10.1940 or 27.10.1946.
The law is well settled and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various decisions has
already laid down the law that it is not
open for a person to apply for correction
of the date of birth just at the threshold of
his retirement from service. Such being
the position we do not find any force in
the argument of Sri Gajendra Pratap.

6. No other point was raised.

7. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed summarily. However, there will
be no order as to costs. If the writ
petitioner-appellant
approaches
the
concerned authority for releasing her
pensionary benefits and other benefits to
which she is entitled under law, in that
case the authority shall release the said
pensionary benefits and other benefits in
accordance with law within a period of
six months from the date of her
approaching the authority.

8. We, however, keep it on record
that the writ petitioner-appellant, on the
basis of the interim order passed by this
Court, has worked in Smt. Sukhdevi
Balika Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Etawah and also got salary for such
period. The authority shall take into
consideration liberally as to whether the
said amount which the writ-petitionerappellant has already got, can be waived
because she has also worked on the basis
of the interim order passed by this Court.
---------
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Neel Kamal Pandey V. State of U.P. and others
859
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 6.8.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42079 of 2001

Neel Kamal Pandey

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dharmendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Krishna Kumar
Sri B.L. Shukla
Sri Anshu Chaudhary
S.C.

Kanpur University-Section 21.03 first
statute
of
class
IV
employeeappointment to be made by Principal
after
obtaining
the
approval
from
Director who has to pass appropriate
order within 2 months.

Held: Para 21

As per the requirements of section 21.03
of the first statutes of Kanpur University,
prior
approval
is
necessary
before
appointment by the authority and no
illegality has been committed in denying
the approval to the selection of the
petitioner. Further the rejection of the
approval order has been issued after
giving full and proper opportunity to the
College authorities who were competent
to challenge the order in question. The
applicant is required to be appointed just
again the same category and the case of
the sweeper is of other than the S.C.
category. After enforcement of the Act
no. 4 of 1994, the G.O. has been
superceded as these facts are taken
cognizance by the Act itself, which is
also in conformity to schedule I annexed
along with Act of 1994, which is for the
backward class category.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

Heard counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

2. This writ petition arises out of an
order-dated 29.9.2001 passed by the
Regional
Higher
Education
Officer,
Kanpur Nagar.

3. By the aforesaid impugned order
the approval to the appointment of the
petitioner as class IV employee (Book
Lifter) in the Laxmi Yadunandan Degree
College, Kayamganj, Farrukhabad has
been refused.

4. The Laxmi Yadunandan Degree
College, Kayamganj, Farrukhabad is a
non-government Aided Degree College,
affiliated and is governed by First Statute
of
Kanpur
University,
U.P.
State
Universities
Act,
1973
and
the
Government orders issued from time to
time.

5. As per the first statute of
University of Kanpur an appointment for
the post of Class IV in a college, is to be
made by the Principal of the College after
making selection, the principal of the
college is required to take approval of the
selection so made from the Director of
Higher Education or an officer authorized
by him. After verifying and satisfying the
facts that all the formalities of selection
have been complied by the principal in
fair
manner
and
rules
relating
to
reservation have been followed, order of
approval or disapproval is communicated.
The provisions of Section 21.02 and 21.03
are as follows: