# Vaishali Dwivedi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 516
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-27
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 15413 of 2022
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vaishali-dwivedi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47859
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Selection - Correction in
application form - Once the petitioner has
not
proceeded
to
comply
with
the
instruction and committed error, is not
entitled
for
any
relief.
Once
the
Commission is not at fault and action of
Commission is not arbitrary, there is no
occasion for this Court to interfere in such
matter by permitting the candidate to
appear in the Main Examination, who has
admittedly not followed the instruction so
given in advertisement. (Para 16, 18)

In the present case, it is clear that petitioner
had the opportunity to correct her application
form including category, but she did not avail
11 All. Vaishali Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
517
the
same.
Further,
paragraph
14(2)
of
advertisement is very specific in nature, which
clearly
says
that
on
submission
of
false/misleading information, the candidature
will be cancelled and undisputedly, information
so provided by the petitioner in her application
form is false. (Para 11)

In paragraph 4 & 14(2) of the advertisement
dated 16.3.2022, it is clearly mentioned that in
case of any mistake while filling up the online
application form, candidates may correct the
same within the last date of submission of form.
Para 14(2) of the said advertisement clearly
provides that in case change of category, no
application for error correction/modification shall
be acceptable. (Para 7, 10, 19)

Once the instructions are mentioned in
the advertisement, it is required on the
part of candidate to follow the same. In
case of failure for any reason on the part
of candidates, cannot be a ground to
grant any relief. In fact, interference at this
stage by the Court would be opening of the
Pandora's Box, which may derail the complete
examination process causing irreparable loss
to the candidates, who have followed terms
and
conditions
of
advertisement,
while
submitting the application form. (Para 18)

B. It is undisputed that petitioner has
not
challenged
the
notice
dated
22.4.2022
(which
permitted
the
candidates to remove the deficiency
w.r.t.
photographs
and
signatures)
before the Court, therefore, he cannot
be given any benefit as claimed by her.
It is within the domain of Commission to
grant relaxation, which shall attain
finality,
if
not
challenged
by
the
aggrieved person. (Para 13)

Petitioner
argues
that
the
action
of
Commission permitting the candidates to
remove the deficiency w.r.t. photographs and
signatures vide notice dated 22.4.2022, is
arbitrary as once the candidates have been
granted
an
opportunity
to
remove
the
deficiencies, that should have been granted
for all deficiencies and should not be confined
only for two. Therefore, it is required on the
part of Commission to accept her request and
change her candidature from SC category to
General category. (Para 5)

C. There is no dispute between the
parties that benefit of reservation is
given only at the stage of final result
prepared
after
interview.
Result
of
Preliminary and Main Examinations of all
candidates are declared only under the
category, which is mentioned by the
candidates. (Para 12)

The argument of the petitioner that once she
has informed that she does not belong to SC
category,
her
result
should
have
been
reconsidered and in case, she has obtained
more marks than the minimum cutoff marks
fixed for General Category, her result should
have been declared under the category of
General Candidates, has no force. (Para 5, 12)

D. The petitioner cannot be permitted to
derail the entire recruitment process as she
chose to wait for the last date. (Para 17)

Petitioner submits that she has filled up her
form on the last date, therefore, she could not
avail the facility (modification/correction in
application form as prescribed) so provided
under the para 4 of the advertisement. (Para 5,
10)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
financial crisis. The financial position of
the family would need to be evaluated on
the basis of the provisions contained in the
scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash
Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC,
(2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590]
has been duly considered, but the Court
observed that it did not appear that the
earlier binding precedents of this Court
have been taken note of in that case."

12. The Apex Court thus observed:-

"Thus as per the law laid down by
this Court in the aforesaid decisions,
compassionate appointment is an exception
to the general rule of appointment in the
public services and is in favour of the
dependents of a deceased dying in harness
and leaving his family in penury and without
any means of livelihood, and in such cases,
out of pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact that unless
some source of livelihood is provided, the
family would not be able to make both ends
meet, a provision is made in the rules to
provide gainful employment to one of the
dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such employment. The whole
object
of
granting
compassionate
employment is, thus, to enable the family to
tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not
to give such family a post much less a post
held by the deceased."

13. Applying the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions to the
facts and circumstances of the present case
and considering the observations made in the
aforesaid decisions and the object and
purpose for which the appointment on
compassionate ground is provided, the Court
is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order denying the petitioner compassionate
appointment on the death of the mother of the
petitioner who died-in-harness in the year
2011. If the appointment of the petitioner on
compassionate grounds is now considered
after 11 years of the death of the deceased
employee, it would be against the very object
and purpose for which appointment on
compassionate grounds is provided.

14. The writ petition fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 516
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ-A No. 15413 of 2022

Vaishali Dwivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ratnakar Udadhyay, Sri R.K. Ojha (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri M.N. Singh

A. Service Law - Selection - Correction in
application form - Once the petitioner has
not
proceeded
to
comply
with
the
instruction and committed error, is not
entitled
for
any
relief.
Once
the
Commission is not at fault and action of
Commission is not arbitrary, there is no
occasion for this Court to interfere in such
matter by permitting the candidate to
appear in the Main Examination, who has
admittedly not followed the instruction so
given in advertisement. (Para 16, 18)

In the present case, it is clear that petitioner
had the opportunity to correct her application
form including category, but she did not avail
11 All. Vaishali Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
517
the
same.
Further,
paragraph
14(2)
of
advertisement is very specific in nature, which
clearly
says
that
on
submission
of
false/misleading information, the candidature
will be cancelled and undisputedly, information
so provided by the petitioner in her application
form is false. (Para 11)

In paragraph 4 & 14(2) of the advertisement
dated 16.3.2022, it is clearly mentioned that in
case of any mistake while filling up the online
application form, candidates may correct the
same within the last date of submission of form.
Para 14(2) of the said advertisement clearly
provides that in case change of category, no
application for error correction/modification shall
be acceptable. (Para 7, 10, 19)

Once the instructions are mentioned in
the advertisement, it is required on the
part of candidate to follow the same. In
case of failure for any reason on the part
of candidates, cannot be a ground to
grant any relief. In fact, interference at this
stage by the Court would be opening of the
Pandora's Box, which may derail the complete
examination process causing irreparable loss
to the candidates, who have followed terms
and
conditions
of
advertisement,
while
submitting the application form. (Para 18)

B. It is undisputed that petitioner has
not
challenged
the
notice
dated
22.4.2022
(which
permitted
the
candidates to remove the deficiency
w.r.t.
photographs
and
signatures)
before the Court, therefore, he cannot
be given any benefit as claimed by her.
It is within the domain of Commission to
grant relaxation, which shall attain
finality,
if
not
challenged
by
the
aggrieved person. (Para 13)

Petitioner
argues
that
the
action
of
Commission permitting the candidates to
remove the deficiency w.r.t. photographs and
signatures vide notice dated 22.4.2022, is
arbitrary as once the candidates have been
granted
an
opportunity
to
remove
the
deficiencies, that should have been granted
for all deficiencies and should not be confined
only for two. Therefore, it is required on the
part of Commission to accept her request and
change her candidature from SC category to
General category. (Para 5)

C. There is no dispute between the
parties that benefit of reservation is
given only at the stage of final result
prepared
after
interview.
Result
of
Preliminary and Main Examinations of all
candidates are declared only under the
category, which is mentioned by the
candidates. (Para 12)

The argument of the petitioner that once she
has informed that she does not belong to SC
category,
her
result
should
have
been
reconsidered and in case, she has obtained
more marks than the minimum cutoff marks
fixed for General Category, her result should
have been declared under the category of
General Candidates, has no force. (Para 5, 12)

D. The petitioner cannot be permitted to
derail the entire recruitment process as she
chose to wait for the last date. (Para 17)

Petitioner submits that she has filled up her
form on the last date, therefore, she could not
avail the facility (modification/correction in
application form as prescribed) so provided
under the para 4 of the advertisement. (Para 5,
10)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ-A No. 66487 of 2015, decided
on
22.12.2015 (Para 6)

2. Prabhakar Mani Tripathi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ-A No. 17824 of
2019, decided
on
21.11.2019 (Para 8)

3. Km. Priyanka Chaturvedy Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ-A No. 485 of 2022, decided on 21.03.2022
(Para 8)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Prashant Kumar Dwivedi & another Vs State
of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No. 5383 of 2020, decided
on 28.08.2020 (Para 6, 14)
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior
Advocate holding brief of Sri Ratnakar
Upadhyay,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent no.1 and Sri M.N. Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 &
3.

2. As the facts of the case are
undisputed, therefore, with the consent of
parties, writ petition is decided at this stage
without calling for the counter affidavit.

3. Present petition has been filed with
the following prayers:-

"(i) A writ order or directing in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent-authorities of the U.P. Public
Service Commission, Prayagraj to permit
the petitioner to make necessary correcting
in the application form as General
Category (UR) in place of SC category."

(ii) A writ, order or directing in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent-authorities of the U.P. Public
Service Commission, Prayagraj to issue
admit card in favour of the petitioner for
appearing
in
the
mains
combined
State/Upper
Subordinate
Services
Examination, 2022 which is going to be
held on 27.9.2022."

4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted
that U.P. Public Service Commission,
Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as
Commission) has issued advertisement on
16.3.2022 inviting the application form for
selection on the different posts of State
Services
by
conducting
Combined
State/Upper
Subordinate
Services
Examination, 2022 (hereinafter referred to
as Examination, 2022). Pursuant to that,
petitioner has filled up the application
form. Examination, 2022 is having three
phases i.e., Preliminary Examination, Main
Examination
&
Interview
He
next
submitted that petitioner belongs to General
Category, but by mistake she filled up her
form under the SC category and also
appeared in the said examination. She was
declared successful in the Preliminary
Examination under SC category though she
obtained more marks than the minimum
cutoff marks for the General Category
Candidate. He further submitted that after
knowing about her mistake, she has written
application to the Commission to correct
her category from SC category to General
category, but the same was not considered
by the Commission and her candidature
was rejected.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted
that
he
is
assailing
the
action
of
Commission on two grounds. Firstly,
Commission has published notice dated
22.4.2022 permitting the candidates to
remove the deficiency with regard to
photographs and signatures, if any. He next
submitted that action of Commission is
arbitrary as once the candidates have been
granted an opportunity to remove the
deficiencies, that should have been granted
for all deficiencies and should not be
confined only for two. Therefore, it is
required on the part of Commission to
accept
her
request
and
change
her
candidature from SC category to General
category. Secondly, he submitted that once
the petitioner has informed that she does
not belong to SC category, her result
should have been reconsidered and in case,
she has obtained more marks than the
minimum cutoff marks fixed for General
Category, her result should have been
declared under the category of General
Candidates.
He
also
submitted
that
11 All. Vaishali Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
519
petitioner has filled up his form on the last
date, therefore, she could not avail the
facility so provided under the para 4 of the
advertisement. He lastly submitted that by
the change of category, he will not be
benefited in any way, therefore, her
mistake has to be taken bonafide and action
taken by the Commission is bad. Petitioner
may be permitted to appear in the Main
Examination.

6. In support of his contention, he has
placed reliance upon the of judgment of
this Court in the case of Prashant Kumar
Dwivedi & another vs. State of U.P. and
others passed in Writ-A No. 5383 of 2020
decided on 28.8.2020.

7. Per contra Mr. M.N. Singh, learned
counsel for the Commission vehemently
opposed the submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner and submitted that in
paragraph 4 & 14(2) of the advertisement
dated 16.3.2022, it is clearly mentioned that
in case of any mistake while filling up the
online application form, candidates may
correct the same within the last date of
submission of form. He next submitted that
paragraph 14(2) of the said advertisement
clearly provides that in case change of
category,
no
application
for
error
correction/modification shall be acceptable.
It also says that on submission of
false/misleading
information,
the
candidature will be cancelled.

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
Commission further submitted that notice
dated 22.4.2022 is very much clear, which
permits only for removal of deficiency with
regard to photograph and signatures. In
case, petitioner is aggrieved with the same,
it is required on her part to challenge the
same, which has never been challenged,
therefore, she cannot be given any benefit
as argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. So far as second submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner is
concerned, he submitted that as per policy
decision
of
Commission,
benefit
of
reservation is extended only at the stage of
preparation of final result. He further
clarified that result of Preliminary and
Main Examinations are declared under the
category mentioned by the Candidates in its
application form and verification of record
is only done at the time of appearance in
interview. Therefore, in light of para 4 &
14(2) of the advertisement dated 16.3.2022,
category of petitioner cannot be changed
and further his candidature has rightly been
rejected. In support of his contention, he
has placed reliance upon the series of
judgments of this Court in the cases of
Santosh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P.
and others passed in Writ-A No. 66487 of
2015 decided on 22.12.2015, Prabhakar
Mani Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others
passed in Writ-A No. 17824 of 2019
decided on 21.11.2019 and Km. Priyanka
Chaturvedy vs. State of U.P. and others
passed in Writ-A No. 485 of 2022 decided
on 21.3.2022.

9. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
advertisement as well as judgments relied
by the learned counsel for the parties.

10. Facts of the case are undisputed
by the parties. Paragraph 4 & 14(2) of the
advertisement dated 16.3.2022 is having
provision to deal with such controversy,
which is subject matter before this Court
and same is quoted hereinbelow:-

"4.
Modify
Submitted
Application: If a candidate comes to know
about any error/errors in the submitted
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application form except in name of the
examination and type of recruitment,
Registered Mobile Number, E-mail ID,
Aadhaar Number and such cases where
prescribed fee for modified category is
higher (In case of error in these entries,
candidate
may
submit
new
online
application with prescribed fee only as
previously deposited fee will neither be
adjusted nor refunded.) He/she will be
given only one opportunity to modify
it/them
according
to
the
following
procedure before the last date of the
submission of application form.................. "

(2)
The
claim
of
category,
subcategory, domicile, gender, date of
birth, name and address will be valid only
till the last date of online application. In
this regard no application for error
correction/modification
shall
be
acceptable. Incomplete application form
shall be summarilly rejected and no
correspondence shall be entertained in this
regard. On submission of false/misleading
information, the candidature will be
cancelled."

11. From perusal of the same, it is
apparently clear that she was having
opportunity to correct her application form
including category, but she has not availed
the same. Further, paragraph 14(2) of said
advertisement is very specific in nature,
which clearly says that on submission of
false/misleading
information,
the
candidature
will
be
cancelled
and
undisputedly, information so provided by
the petitioner in her application form is
false.

12. So far as second argument of
learned counsel for the petitioner about the
controverting of category from SC category
to General category on the basis of marks
obtained in Preliminary Examination is
concerned, that is also having no force.
There is no dispute between the parties that
benefit of reservation is given only at the
stage
of
final
result
prepared
after
interview. Result of Preliminary and Main
Examinations of all candidates are declared
only
under
the
category,
which
is
mentioned by the candidates.

13. Further, it is undisputed that
petitioner has not challenged the notice
dated 22.4.2022 before the Court, therefore,
he cannot be given any benefit as claimed
by her. It is within the domain of
Commission to grant relaxation, which
shall attain finality, if not challenged by the
aggrieved person.

14. I have perused the judgment of
this Court in the matter of Prashant Kumar
Dwivedi (supra) so relied by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. From perusal of
the same, it is clear that controversy in the
said judgment is entirely different on facts.
In that case, candidates are required to
submit certificates duly countersigned by
the Principal/Manager/Registrar and Joint
Director of Education of the Mandal
concerned and those certificates submitted
by the petitioners were not countersigned
by the authorities. Commission has granted
extra time to such candidates to file
certificate duly countersigned by the
authorities mentioned hereinabove. The
action
of
Commission
was
under
challenged and ultimately Court has
dismissed the writ petition, therefore, this
judgment will not help the petitioner in the
present case.

15. I have also perused the judgment
of this Court in the case of Prabhakar
Mani Tripathi (Supra) relied by the
learned counsel for the Commission. In the
said judgment, the very same dispute was
11 All. Vaishali Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
521
in question about the change of category
and Court after considering the facts of the
case, dismissed the writ petition vide order
dated 21.11.2019. The said judgment is
being quoted hereinbelow:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Shikhar Tandon holding
brief of Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned
counsel
for
the
U.P.Public
Service
Commission.

Petitioner is before this Court
with a request to issue a mandamus
commanding the respondents to consider
the petitioner as physically handicapped
category and rectify the petitioner's mistake
in the column-16 and 16.3 in online form
bearing Registration No. 30421315447 for
the
Review
Officer/Assistant
Review
Officer(General and Special Recruitment)
Examination 2017.

At the very outset, an objection
has been raised by Sri Tandon that so far
as the advertisement dated 30.12.2017
issued by the U.P.P.S.C., the same was
unambiguous and categorical and has
placed reliance upon para 14 sub clause
(2), which is reproduced herein below.

"No change in category, subcategory, Date of Birth etc. is permissible
after the receipt of application form in the
office of the Commission. In this regard no
application
for
error
correction/modification
shall
be
acceptable."

In this backdrop, initially on the
basis of the said instructions, the petitioner
has downloaded the form, filled up the
same and thereafter submitted in the office
of
the
Commission.
He
has
again
downloaded the admit card for appearing
in the preliminary examination and only
thereafter, the present application for
correction/modification in application form
has been pressed. Once, the categorical
instructions were given as aforementioned,
in such situation, as per terms and
conditions of the advertisement, it is
impermissible that thereafter, the petitioner
can apply for correction in the application
form.

Once an objection is being
raised, the Court has proceeded to examine
the record in question as well as
advertisement dated 30.12.2017. Bare
perusal of the advertisement especially
para 14 (2), this Court is of the view once
the petitioner has undergone with aforesaid
process, thereafter, as per instruction, he
cannot avail the relief as has been asked
for and as such, the Court declines to
interfere
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India.

The writ petition lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed."

16. This Court in the matter of
Santosh Kumar Pandey (Supra) has taken
firm view that once the petitioner has not
proceeded to comply with the instruction
and committed error, is not entitled for any
relief and dismissed the writ petition
Relevant paragraph of the said judgement
are quoted below:-

"To
see
and
ensure
that
identity of candidate is not reflected
from the Answer Sheet and there is zero
humane
interference,
important
instructions have been issued with clear
cut mention that in case there is an
error, following consequences would
ensue. Once instructions in question are
coupled with consequences, then such
instructions necessarily will have to be
accepted as of being mandatory in
character.

..............................................................
........................................
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Once such is the factual situation
and the law on the subject is clear that
instructions in question have to be
interpreted in the context of object for
which it has been framed and here, in this
era of computerization, once petitioner has
proceeded
not
to
comply
with
the
instructions and has committed error not at
one place but at two places in the OMR
sheet and same mistake has been repeated
in attendance-sheet, then he has to blame
himself and same cannot be dubbed as
humane error.

Consequently, in the facts of the
case, in case any directive is given to U.P.
Public Service Commission to undertake
such an exercise as has been prayed by the
petitioner, then it would not only open
flood gate, same would make way for
humane intervention and give chance of
manipulation and manoeuvring in the fool
proof scheme prepared by U.P. Public
Service Commission and any interference
by us would tantamount to creating a fresh
forum i.e. not provided for.

Writ
petition
is
dismissed
accordingly."

17. I have also perused the judgment
of this Court in the case of Km. Priyanka
Chaturvedi (supra). The said judgment
was placed by the learned counsel for the
Commission in reply to submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner
about the submission of application form
on the last date. Court has considered this
view and reject the same. Relevant
paragraph of the said judgement is quoted
hereinbelow:-

"The petitioner has sufficient
opportunity to go about the exercise of
uploading his application form for Main
Examination of P.C.S.-2021. He took risk
of waiting for the last date and by some
misfortune, could not do so on account of
vagaries of the internet, which the
petitioner has alleged in the writ petition.
Even otherwise, the grounds for passing
the impugned order by U.P. Public
Service Commission has not been denied
by the petitioner in her amendment
application.
Further,
the
petitioner
cannot be permitted to derail the entire
recruitment process as she chose to wait
for the last date.

In this view of the matter, this
Court is of the opinion that the petitioner
is not entitled for any relief."

18. In light of such factual position
as well as law pronounced by the Courts
on different occasions, this Court is of the
firm view that once the instructions are
mentioned in the advertisement, it is
required on the part of candidate to
follow the same. In case of failure for any
reason on the part of candidates, cannot
be a ground to grant any relief. In fact,
interference at this stage by the Court
would be opening of the Pandora's Box,
which
may
derail
the
complete
examination process causing irreparable
loss to the candidates, who have followed
terms and conditions of advertisement,
while submitting the application form.
Once the Commission is not at fault and
action of Commission is not arbitrary,
there is no occasion for this Court to
interfere in such matter by permitting the
candidate
to
appear
in
the
Main
Examination, who has admittedly not
followed the instruction so given in
advertisement.

19. So far as present case is
concerned, petitioner, though having full
opportunity,
has
not
followed
the
instruction given in the advertisement dated
16.3.2022 to correct his category from SC
11 All. Subhramaniyam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
523
to General, therefore, she is not entitled for
any relief and her candidature has rightly
been rejected.

20. In view of above facts mentioned
hereinabove as well as law laid by this Court,
the writ petition lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 523
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ - A No. 13744 of 2021

Subhramaniyam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abhiuday Mehrotra, Sri Shailendra, Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ved Byas Mishra, Sri Mani
Shanker Mishra

A. Service Law - Retirement - Change in
Date of Birth - Class-IV Employees Service
Rules, 1975 - Indian Majority Act - Just as
an employee cannot be permitted to get
his date of birth changed at the fag end of
his service, the same rule would apply to
the employer also and the date of birth
could not have been changed without due
inquiry and show cause notice to the
petitioner. The employer cannot of its own
ignore the High School Certificate which had
been duly verified by the U.P. Board only on the
basis of incorrect date of birth mentioned in the
service records. (Para 14, 21)

Once the date of birth is entered into the service
record as per the educational certificate, and
accepted by the employee, the same cannot be
changed. In the case of the petitioner no
request for change of date of birth in the
service
records
was
made
by
the
petitioner.
It
was
the
respondents
themselves who had issued notice of
retirement and thereafter, the petitioner
made a representation that his High
School Certificate was already available
with the Respondent Corporation as he had
submitted the same in 1997 at the time of his
promotion. (Para 19)

There is a clear mention by the petitioner in writ
petition that he had submitted his educational
certificate in 1991 after getting a copy of High
School Certificate by him on 21.03.1991. Only
thereafter he was promoted in 1991 as a ClassIII employee. However such a statement in the
writ petition has not been denied in the counter
affidavit of the respondents. It was the duty
of the respondents to correct the date of
birth of the petitioner, if it had been
wrongly recorded in his service record
earlier, after he submitted his High School
Certificate to them in 1991, and at the
time of his promotion 1997 as a Class-III
employee. It is not as if the petitioner had
passed High School after he had joined
service. In fact he had passed High School in
1980 and he entered service in May, 1982. So it
cannot said that he deliberately mentioned a
wrong date of birth at the time of filling up of
his High School Form for the examination. (Para
20)

B. If the writ petitioner was admitted into
service below age, both parties were
equally guilty; no misrepresentation of the
writ petitioner is on record. The service
that was rendered by the writ petitioner
while still under age, was paid for by the
appellant, and no more. The breach of
rules on both sides cannot make the writ
petitioner get born earlier. (Para 15)

Editor's note: In the present case, though the
Hon'ble Court while exercising an equitable
discretion has allowed the change in DOB
following the observations in Sayta Narain
(Driver) (infra) but did not follow observations
regarding salary and refused the arrears of
salary for the period the petitioner was not in
service. (Refer Para 15)