USHA MEHRA ( 1 ) PETITIONER was working as a Senior Master under the Director of Education, Kashmir. She worked upto 1st April, 1975 with her parent department at Jammu and Kashmir. She applied to her parent Department to relieve her in order to join New Delhi Municipal Committee (in short NDMC ). The respondent? NDMC had advertised for the appointment Officer to assist the Education Officer in the matter of reorganising the Social Education set up. The necessary requirement for the same was that the incumbent should preferably have 10 to 20 years teaching/administrative experience and should be devoted to the cause of education, particularly to adult education. In view of the experience requirement, the age limits for recruitment was treated at par with that of TGT. Initial higher start could be given on the basis of experience and pay previously drawn, the said post was advertised by NDMC on 20th February, 1975. As pointed out above the petitioner applied for the same. She was selected. Her basic pay was ordered to be protected only after the receipt of the service record from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On account of disturbances in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, service record of the petitioner Sent by the State of Jammu and Kashmir found some typographical errors with regard to her date of birth and father s name. Her father s name was wrongly written as Sh. Dina Nath Chiken instead of correct name i. e. late Pt. Prem Nath Chicken. Her date of birth was wrongly recorded as 1st September, 1939 instead of 1st September, 1943, on finding this error she represented to the respondent to correct the same. She submitted the original academic certificate and service documents for onward submission to the State of Jammu and Kashmir for correction of her parentage and her date of birth in the service record sent by them. According to her made this representation within five years from the date of Government Notification issued on 30th November, 1979 which lays down that if wrong date of birth has been recorded, a Government employee can get it corrected within five years of the issue of that circular. When the corrected service record was not received from the Jammu and Kashmir she requested for the returned of the original documents/certificates. On her representation the Asstt. When the corrected service record was not received from the Jammu and Kashmir she requested for the returned of the original documents/certificates. On her representation the Asstt. Secretary of NDMC made the endorsement the original documents/certificates had already been referred to the State of Jammu and Kashmir for necessary action. Petitioner was asked to produce duplicate matriculation certificate. She applied for the same but on account of disturbances in the State of Jammu and Kashmir could not get it. She, however, produced school leaving certificates and the state Subject Certificate issued dated 17th December, 1960. In the meantime, a letter was received from the Director of Education of the State of Jammu and Kashmir dated 16th June, 1996 giving the correct particulars of the petitioner regarding her parentage and date of birth. These particulars furnished by him were based on various records maintained by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. In spite of those documents and the reply received from the Director of Education dated 11th June, 1996, the respondent did not correct her parentage nor correct her date of birth. It is in this background the petitioner filed this writ petition. She also sought stay against her pre-mature retirement. Keeping in view the documentary evidence placed on record, the stay was granted. ( 2 ) THE respondent filed the present application seeking vacation of the stay granted on 21st August, 1997. Along with the application, the respondent filed its counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit the respondent has taken the plea that the documents submitted by the petitioner were false, fabricated and could not be relied upon as those do not pertain to the petitioner, namely, the school leaving certificates and the State Subject Certificate. These pertain to a person whose name is Smt. Chuni Kumari, daughter of Shri Prem Nath. Whereas the name of petitioner is Smt. Chuni Shivpuri. Her parentage as per service record of the respondent is Shri Dina Nath Chiken. Thus the certificates which pertain to Smt. Chuni Kumar cannot be that of the petitioner. Moreover, "smt. " word is used in State Subject Certificate shows it pertains to a married woman whereas the petitioner was unmarried at that stage. Hence that State Subject Certificate cannot be that of the petitioner. Thus the certificates which pertain to Smt. Chuni Kumar cannot be that of the petitioner. Moreover, "smt. " word is used in State Subject Certificate shows it pertains to a married woman whereas the petitioner was unmarried at that stage. Hence that State Subject Certificate cannot be that of the petitioner. The other objection taken by the respondent is that the State Subject Certificate belongs to a person who was resident of Naushir Mohalla, Tehsil Khas, Distt. Sri Nagar whereas the petitioner herself in her representation dated 28th July, 1997 claimed to be resident of Nishat and of Karan Nagar, Sri Nagar, Kashmir. Thus the State Subject Certificate could not be that of the petitioner. Even otherwise the height of the person given in the State Subject Certificate is 5 -1". Whereas as per the service book petitioner s height was measured to be 4 -9". Coupled with the fact that as per the State Subject Certificate age of the person was 18 years whereas even if we accept that petitioner s date of birth was in September, 1943 then in 1960 her age should be 17 years whereas it is mentioned as 18 years. For this reason also the State Subject Certificate could not be of the petitioner. Moreover, the identification mark as per the State Subject Certificate was a "black mole on the left hand whereas as per service record her identification mark as given by her was "old Scar about 3" x1 vertical aspect on forearm about an inch below the elbow joint". Similarly the school leaving certificates could not being to the petitioner because a child of hardly 11 years could not appear for 10th Class examination nor a child of nine years could appear for 8th Class examination. Lastly, she never made any representation earlier to 1997 for the correction of her parentage and date of birth. She had been representing for counting her past service but never expressed her grouse with regard to her parentage or birth, it is only when her retirement age came nearer she made representation. She was asked to produce her matriculation certificate which till date she has not produced. Enquiry be the Vigilance Department of the respondent is pending against her for misplacement of her service record, application submitting by her at the time of appointment and for committing fraud with the respondent and for forging the documents. She was asked to produce her matriculation certificate which till date she has not produced. Enquiry be the Vigilance Department of the respondent is pending against her for misplacement of her service record, application submitting by her at the time of appointment and for committing fraud with the respondent and for forging the documents. ( 3 ) AT the outset it must be remembered that this is not a case where wrong date of birth has been entered in the matriculation certificate by the University or that the petitioner gave wrong date of birth to the University or to the respondent. It has never been the case of the petitioner that her date of birth had been wrongly recorded in the matriculation certificate. All parentage and date of birth has been wrongly furnished by the State of Jammu and Kashmir which happened because of the turmoil prevailing in that state at that time. She wanted that to be corrected. Therefore, the question of limitation as to when the correction be sought for does not apply to the facts of this case. We have to see whether the documents furnished by her and the State of Jammu and Kashmir through the Director of Education are sufficient to prime facie substantiate her stand that the real name of her father was Pandit Prem Nath Chicken. That her date of birth was 1st September, 1943 and he maiden name was Smt. Chuni Kumari, Daughter to Pt. Prem Nath Chicken. For the disposal of this interim application, we need not go into each and every allegation on merits as that would amount to deciding the main writ petition. We have only to see prima facie whether any case is made out for grant or vacation of the stay. Keeping this basic principle in mind. I intend disposing the interim applications filed by the respective parties. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has placed on record School Leaving Certificates Annexure 11- A (Copy) dated 21st and 22nd July, 1997 issued by Kashyapa Girls High School, Karan Nagar, Srinagar wherein it has been certified that Chuni Kumari Chiken was the daughter of late Shri Prem Nath, R/o Zaindar Mohalla, Srinagar, Kashmir. She was the student of that School and her date of birth as recorded in the School upto 1955. She appeared in the Board Examination in the year 1955 as a private candidate. She was the student of that School and her date of birth as recorded in the School upto 1955. She appeared in the Board Examination in the year 1955 as a private candidate. Her date of birth recorded in the School admission from was 1st September, 1943. Examination record was not available with the School as the same had been gutted in fire due to disturbances. Over and above these two certificates, the petitioner produced the State Subject Certificate (Annexure 11 )) on the file dated 17th December, 1960. This Certificate was issued by, His Highness Government Jammu and Kashmir, it reads as under :- HIS HIGHNESS GOVERNMENT JAMMU and KASHMIR This is co certify that Smt. Chunni Kumari Chicken, D/o Pandit Prem Nath Chicken, R/o Naushir Mohalla, Tehsil Khas, Distt. Srinagar is a State Subject of Mustaquil Class within the meaning of the Judicial Department of Riyasat No. 84 dated the 20th April, 1927 (reproduced overleaf) Notification Note: If the applicant marries an outsider the Notification will be deemed to be cancelled. 15th Dec. , 1960 320 sd/-Tehsildar Deputy Commissioner sd/-Full Description Left hand thumb and finger prints Height 571" Age 18 years. Mark of identification mole of left hand. Signature of applicant. Chunni Kumar Chicken Finger Prints Sd. Deputy Commissioner Tehsildar Grounds on which certificate is given Issue vide Tehsil File No. 1894 for employment purposes over Rs. 50. 00 P. M. Sd/-Deputy Commissioner Tehsildar date: 17. 12. 1960 For the use of Audit Office Received with Dy. No File in State Subject Certificate file of Dated. . . Head of the office P/s Attested Range Officer H. Q. Asst of project Officer Brengi Project Nagdandi Achabal Anantnag Kmr. ( 5 ) THIS certificate which the petitioner produced show that her name was Chuni Kumar Chicken, daughter of late Pandit Prem Nath Chicken and her age was 18 years and that she was unmarried at that time. The Tehsildar who recorded the State Subject Certificate mentioned her as "smt". To my mind, the argument of counsel for the respondent that since "smt". word was recorded in this certificate hence it could not belong to the petitioner. This argument is devoid of sense. To write an unmarried girl "smt. " does not mean she is married. It can be a wrong expression. To my mind, the argument of counsel for the respondent that since "smt". word was recorded in this certificate hence it could not belong to the petitioner. This argument is devoid of sense. To write an unmarried girl "smt. " does not mean she is married. It can be a wrong expression. But that would not make her a married person particularly when instead of her husband s name her father s name was given. When the Tehsildar issued this Certificate on 15th December, 1960 he made an endorsement on the certificate that in case the applicant i. e. Smt. Chuni Kumari marries outside the State the Notification will be cancelled. It clearly show that the use of word "smt. " for Chuni Kumar was superfluous. She was unmarried can be seen from the endorsement made on this certificate, this note is a complete answer to the argument of the respondent. As regard the objection of the respondent that in this certificate height has been shown as 5 -1" and age 18 years, this arguments is also devoid of merits. These facts were mentioned on the information supplied and could be approximate but not based on actual measurement of the height or the age as the case may be. The argument of Mr. Sabharwal on this count has no force. However, it must be mentioned that this document Annexure 11 i. e. the State Subject Certificate bears the left hand thumb impression and finger prints of the person named in this certificate. Counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that if the authenticity of this document was in doubt, the respondent could have got the finger prints and thumb impression on this certificate compared with the thumb and finger prints taken of the petitioner on her service record (Annexure R- 2 ). The State Subject Certificate (Annexure 11 ) has been declared by the State of Jammu and Kashmir to be an authenticated document. This has been so stated vide letter dated 26th September, 1996 (Annexure 12 ). As per this document her name has been given as Chuni Kumar Chicken if ultimately it is proved that if belongs to the petitioner then no dispute is left regarding other documents produced by the petitioner showing her maiden name to be Chuni Kumar Chicken and her father s name Pt. Prem Nath Chicken. As per this document her name has been given as Chuni Kumar Chicken if ultimately it is proved that if belongs to the petitioner then no dispute is left regarding other documents produced by the petitioner showing her maiden name to be Chuni Kumar Chicken and her father s name Pt. Prem Nath Chicken. Hence facie on the basis of State Subject Certificate, School Leaving Certificate, letter dated 11th June, 1996 received from the Director of Education it can be said that her father s name could be Pt. Prem Chand Chicken. ( 6 ) SO far as her date of birth, as already pointed above, the petitioner has produced the Discharge Certificate from the School. Pursuance to the letter written by the NDMC, the Directorate of School Education, Kashmir vide its letter dated 11th June, 1996 informed the Secretary of NDMC asunder: Govt. Of Jammu and Kashmir Directorate of School Education Kmr. Sgr To The Secretary. New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra New Delhi. Sub: Information regarding Chuni Chiken (Shivpuri) Ref: Your No. 1365/pf/edu/jc-ll (II) Dated 10-2-1996 Sir, With reference to your letter on the subject cited above, I am to furnish herewith the required information as under:this post is entitled for pensionary benefits. She was working as a permanent Sr. Master in scale of Rs. 340-700. 00. This information is being given after consulting various permanent records available with our Deptt. which cannot be sent to NDMC. Other record submitted by her is not. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Department has. no object to her, permanent adjustment in the New Delhi, Municipal Council. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (M. A. Khan)IAS Director School Education Kashmir Dated : 11. 6. 1996. ( 7 ) PERUSAL of this letter clearly show that information supplied by the Directorate of Education, Kashmir to the Secretary, NDMC was based on various permanent records as available with that Department. As per the records available with the Directorate of School Education, Kashmir petitioner s father name had been shown as late Pt. Prem Nath Chicken, R/o Zaindar Mohalla, Malik Bagh, Srinagar, Kashmir and her date of birth to be 1st September, 1943. The contention of Mr. As per the records available with the Directorate of School Education, Kashmir petitioner s father name had been shown as late Pt. Prem Nath Chicken, R/o Zaindar Mohalla, Malik Bagh, Srinagar, Kashmir and her date of birth to be 1st September, 1943. The contention of Mr. Sabharwal that this letter was handed over personally by the petitioner hence cannot be relied, to my mind, this argument has no force. This letter in original was received by the Secretary, NDMC. May be with petitioner s efforts the State of Jammu and Kashmir sent the reply which that State did not brother to do earlier. In case the NDMC had any doubt regarding the authenticity of that letter dated 11th June, 1996 it could got it verified. But the respondent did not do anything. In spite of that NDMC refused to rely on this reply without any valid reasons. Hence prime facie at this stage Annexure 1 dated 11th June, 1996 a letter sent by Mr. m. A. Khan, Director School Education, Kashmir addressed to Secretary, NDMC cannot be said to be a waste paper. The contention of Mr. Sabharwal that petitioner was too young to have appeared in the matriculation examination at the age of 11 or 12 years. Refuting these allegations Mr. Naresh Kaushik, counsel for the petitioner contended that in the State of Jammu and Kashmir there was no condition of minimum age for appearing in the Board Examination at the relevant time. To support his contention he has cited examples in para d of his rejoinder Affidavit. Those persons are employed with the NDMC. They appeared in the matriculation examination at the age of 11 years and 12 years respectively. In this view of the matter, the argument of Mr. Sabharwal is without merits nor it can be said that since petitioner appeared in the matriculation examination at the age of 11 years, therefore, documents are fabricated, in fiftees or sixtees there was no minimum age prescribed for appearing the matriculation examination. Even otherwise this no ground to suspect the State Subject Certificate furnished by the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the School leaving certificates. In fact the best evidence was with the respondent i. e. petitioner s application or form filled up by her at the time of applying for the job. Her certificates submitted by her with her application and her complete service record. In fact the best evidence was with the respondent i. e. petitioner s application or form filled up by her at the time of applying for the job. Her certificates submitted by her with her application and her complete service record. But unfortunately for NDMC it is missing. Except Annexure r-2 respondent has not produced any other document in the handwriting of the petitioner thereby giving her father s name Dina Chand and age as 1st September, 1939. Annexure r-2 is not in the handwriting of the petitioner. She, however, thumb marked and signed and signed the same. According to her she immediately by making endorsement on the first page of her service book requested the respondent to correct this mistake, it is the stand of the respondent that application from filled by the petitioner at the time of seeking employment with the NDMC and the testimonials submitted by her as well as the first page of her service record are missing. The only record available the copy of the which is placed on record available the copy of which is placed on record is Annexure r-2 . The contention of the respondent that the service record including the testimonials and the application form filled by the petitioner have been taken away by the petitioner that matter is under investigation of the Vigilance Department of NDMC. Moreover, counsel for the petitioner strongly refuted these allegations. According to him if the petitioner was to destroy her service record, why would she leave Annexure r-2 where her date of birth and parentate had been wrongly recorded. She should have destroyed this document first instead of destroying the application form, her testimonials and the first page of the service book. According to Mr. Kaushik, the petitioner specifically raised the point of recording her incorrect date of birth and parentage at the earliest opportunity by making an entry on the first page of her service book. That page the respondent is deliberately not producing on flimsy ground that the same has been missing. According to the petitioner her service record was in the custody of the Personnel Department of NDMC. There the petitioner had no access. In fact on account of non-production of that relevant record, adverse presumption should be drawn against the respondent. That page the respondent is deliberately not producing on flimsy ground that the same has been missing. According to the petitioner her service record was in the custody of the Personnel Department of NDMC. There the petitioner had no access. In fact on account of non-production of that relevant record, adverse presumption should be drawn against the respondent. Non- production of the relevant documents and complete service record speaks volumous about the intention of the respondent to harm the petitioner with malafide intention. Similarly, refuting the argument of Mr Sabharwal, Mr. Kaushik contended that mentioning of her Mohalla in the State Subject Certificate to be Naushiv is of no consequence because before marriage she was residing there. In her representation which she made in 1997, she furnished the ancestral property and the residential address of her husband, therefore. Even otherwise Naushiv Mohalla is in Karan Nagar. Similarly, the identification mark given on state Subject Certificate was of 1960 whereas in 1976 the predominant identification mark was old scar, hence that mark was given. To my, mind, this is such a minor thing which leads no where. The fact, however, remains that the State Subject Certificate (Annexure a-11 ) issued in December, 1960 prima facie snow that petitioner s father s name was Pandit Prem Nath Chicken which fact has been corroborated by the Director of School Education, Kashmir vide his letter dated 11th June, 1976 coupled with the School leaving certificates. Hence, it can prima facie be said that petitioner has a case which requires consideration. ( 8 ) MR. Sabharwal s further contention that at the time of selection of the petitioner, her date of birth was shown as 1st September 1939 as is apparent from Annexure r-1 . This can be explained because had been the case of the petitioner that while sending her particulars some typographical error crept into her service book by the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It was for this reason she sought correction to be got done. On repeated letters written by NDMC the Director of Education vide his letter dated 11th June, 1996 sent the correct particulars. In this view of the matter at this stage no much importance can be attached to Annexure r-1 . ( 9 ) THE petitioner has also refuted the argument of the respondent that she applied for the first time for correction in 1987. In this view of the matter at this stage no much importance can be attached to Annexure r-1 . ( 9 ) THE petitioner has also refuted the argument of the respondent that she applied for the first time for correction in 1987. with her rejoinder affidavit she had filed copy of letter dated 19th March, 1977 duly entered in the register of respondent Annexure ra-1 on 7th March, 1977 wherein she had mentioned that her parentage and date of birth be corrected. Be that as it may, as pointed out in the beginning, it is not the case where correction is sought in the matriculation certificate on the basis of wrong date having been recorded. Correction in the service record is sought on the basis of the documents filed by her and the reply received from the Director of Education, Jammu and Kashmir whereby he communicated to the Secretary, NDMC her correct date of birth and father s name. Petitioner is only asking for correction in the service record based on the reply given by her parent department. On this count also. I find prima facie argument in favour of the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, they stay already granted cannot be vacated. It may, however, be clarified that and observations made hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the case.