# Subrahmanyam v. K. Ramanjaneyullu &

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 277
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-03-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2005
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/subrahmanyam-v-k-ramanjaneyullu-40440
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

of date of birth Rules- r. 4- correction in
date of birth- Petitioner appoin0ted as
class 4th employee- in Nagar Palika
Sikandrabad- appointed on 1.9.70- in
service book date of birth entered as
21.1.48- as such he achieved the age of
superannuation on 21.1.08 e.g. 31.1.05-
by impugned order dated 21.11.04-
Noticed
retiring
the
petitioner
on
28.2.05- the basis of alteration in the
date of birth is medical certificate issued
in the year 1975- held- even the
employer can not unilaterally change the
date of birth as recorded in service book-
at the fag end of service.
Held- Para 3
Just as an employee is not entitled to
have his date of birth changed at the fag
end of his career, the employer also
cannot be permitted to change the date
of birth of its employee without there
being any concrete evidence for the
same and that too, at the fag end of his
career. The certificate on the basis of
which the respondents are claiming that
the petitioner has attained the age of 60
years on 7.2.2005, had been issued in
the year 1975 and was on the record of
the Nagar Palika Parishad. After 30
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
years, they cannot be permitted to
unilaterally change the date of birth of
the petitioner when, admittedly his date
of birth had been, since his inception in
service, recorded to be 21.1.1948. The
impugned
order
dated
29.11.2004
whereby the date of birth of the
petitioner
has
been
changed,
thus,
deserves to be set aside and is hereby
quashed.

## Text

1 All] Fakharuddin V. Nagar Palika, Sikandrabad and others
277
elections at regular intervals cannot be
overemphasized. If holding of elections
was allowed to stall on the complaint of a
few individuals then grave injustice
would be done to crores of other voters
who
had
a
right
to
elect
their
representatives to the democratic bodies.

10. This view stands fortified by
judgments of the Apex Court in C.
Subrahmanyam Vs. K. Ramanjaneyullu &
Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 703; Election
Commission of India Vs Ashok Kumar &
Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 216; Ram Phal Kundu
Vs. Kamal Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 1657;
and Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam,
AIR 2004 SC 3600. Thus, it is settled
legal proposition that once the notification
for holding elections is issued, the Court
should not interdict and retard the election
in the midway, nor it should interfere with
the election process. It is not permissible
in law that High Court can interfere with
the election process having the effect of
interrupting, obstructing or protracting the
same. The party aggrieved has to wait till
the conclusion of the election process and
challenge the result of the election by
filing the appropriate petition before the
appropriate forum.

11. The case in hand is squarely
covered by the judgments of this Court,
referred to above. It has been held that
writ should not be issued for inclusion or
exclusion of a person in or from the
voters' list. We do not see any justification
to take a different view, rather judicial
discipline and decorum warrant to follow
the same. Petition is dismissed. However,
petitioners shall be at liberty to approach
the appropriate forum for appropriate
relief after the elections stand concluded.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2005

Fakharuddin

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Nagar Palika Parishad, Sikandrabad and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.K. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prem Chandra
Sri Yasharth

U.P. Government Servant Determination
of date of birth Rules- r. 4- correction in
date of birth- Petitioner appoin0ted as
class 4th employee- in Nagar Palika
Sikandrabad- appointed on 1.9.70- in
service book date of birth entered as
21.1.48- as such he achieved the age of
superannuation on 21.1.08 e.g. 31.1.05-
by impugned order dated 21.11.04-
Noticed
retiring
the
petitioner
on
28.2.05- the basis of alteration in the
date of birth is medical certificate issued
in the year 1975- held- even the
employer can not unilaterally change the
date of birth as recorded in service book-
at the fag end of service.
Held- Para 3
Just as an employee is not entitled to
have his date of birth changed at the fag
end of his career, the employer also
cannot be permitted to change the date
of birth of its employee without there
being any concrete evidence for the
same and that too, at the fag end of his
career. The certificate on the basis of
which the respondents are claiming that
the petitioner has attained the age of 60
years on 7.2.2005, had been issued in
the year 1975 and was on the record of
the Nagar Palika Parishad. After 30
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
years, they cannot be permitted to
unilaterally change the date of birth of
the petitioner when, admittedly his date
of birth had been, since his inception in
service, recorded to be 21.1.1948. The
impugned
order
dated
29.11.2004
whereby the date of birth of the
petitioner
has
been
changed,
thus,
deserves to be set aside and is hereby
quashed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Sri Prem Chandra,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents. A counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states
that the petitioner does not wish to file
any rejoinder affidavit. With consent of
the learned counsel for the parties this
writ petition is being disposed of at this
stage.

2. The petitioner was in the service
of respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad
Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. He
was initially appointed on a class IV post
on 8.2.1966 and was thereafter confirmed
in service on 1.9.1970. Admittedly in the
service book of the petitioner maintained
by the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad,
his date of birth has been entered as
21.1.1948 and it has also been indicated
that the age of superannuation of the
petitioner
would
21.1.2008.
On
29.11.2004 the petitioner had received an
order passed by Respondent no.3 (who,
according to the petitioner, is not even the
appointing authority of the petitioner)
wherein it has been stated that on the
basis of a medical certificate which had
been produced by the petitioner, he would
be attaining the age of 60 years on
7.2.2005 and thus would retire on the last
day of the said month which would be
28.2.2005. Aggrieved by the said order
the petitioner has filed this writ petition
with a further prayer that he may be
permitted to continue in service till
21.1.2008 as per the date of birth recorded
his service records.

Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of record, in my
opinion, this writ petition deserves to be
allowed.

3. The date of birth as recorded in
the service took is to be taken as final
unless it is validly changed in accordance
with the relevant Rules in this regard. Sri
Prem Chandra, learned counsel for the
respondents, has not been able to place
before me any rule in accordance with
which the date of birth would be treated
as different from the one which has been
recorded in the service book of an
employee. He has placed reliance on a
medical certificate, a copy of which has
been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ
petition, in which the petitioner's age,
according to his statement as well as by
his appearance, is said to be 30 years. The
said certificate was issued on 7.2.1975. It
is only on this ground that the respondentauthorities are treating the petitioner to be
30 years of age on 7.2.1975 and thus
calculating his date of birth on such basis,
the petitioner is said to have attained the
age of 60 years on 7.2.2005. Just as an
employee is not entitled to have his date
of birth changed at the fag end of his
career, the employer also cannot be
permitted to change the date of birth of its
employee
without
there
being
any
concrete evidence for the same and that
too, at the fag end of his career. The
certificate on the basis of which the
respondents
are
claiming
that
the
1 All] Udai Pratap Singh V. State of U.P. and others
279
petitioner has attained the age of 60 years
on 7.2.2005, had been issued in the year
1975 and was on the record of the Nagar
Palika Parishad. After 30 years, they
cannot be permitted to unilaterally change
the date of birth of the petitioner when,
admittedly his date of birth had been,
since his inception in service, recorded to
be 21.1.1948. The impugned order dated
29.11.2004 whereby the date of birth of
the petitioner has been changed, thus,
deserves to be set aside and is hereby
quashed. The petitioner shall be permitted
to continue in service on the basis of his
date of birth as entered in the service book
i.e. 21.1.1948. The petitioner shall be
entitled to all consequential benefits.

4. Consequently, this writ petition
stands allowed. No order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SABHAJEE YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7425 of 2002

Udai Pratap Singh

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yogesh Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Jai Bahadur Singh
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921- S7AA-Part time teacher- engaged by
management whether entitled for salary
from public exchequer? Held-'No"-the
post neither sanctioned nor approved by
Director of Education-No question of
payment
of
salary
from
public
exchequer.

Held- Para 16

Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion
and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court
and this court from time to time as
indicated in foregoing paragraphs, it is
clear that being a part time teacher the
petitioner is not entitled for payment of
salary from the state exchequer as the
post on which he is working has not
been sanctioned/approved by Director of
Education (Secondary) as required under
law.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1998 SC -295
JT 2000 (i) SC- 159
JT 2003 (5) SC -448
AIR 1982-SC-879
AIR 1993 SC-286
AIR 1988 SC 1291

(B) U.P. Intermediate Education Act
1921 Section-7 AA(6) equal pay for equal
work-part time teacher-Regular teacherdifference between the two-mode and
procedure of selection, quality of work
and
duty-vast
difference-a
regular
teacher can be a part time teacher in the
same institution or other but part time
teacher is for limited purpose-held-both
can not be comparable-principle of equal
pay for equal work not applicable.

Held- Para 26

Thus an intensive analysis and close
scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions of
law go to show that there is vast
difference in the manner, mode and
procedure of selection of part time
teacher and regular teachers appointed
in
substantive
vacancies
in
the
Secondary institutions recognized by the
Board of High School and Intermediate
Education. On this count both the
teachers cannot be comparable to each
other in standard of recruitment and
accordingly the qualities of work and
duties discharged by them can also not
be comparable. Besides this it is also