Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1247 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. RAMESH CHANDRA

2009-12-09

DEEPAK GUPTA, V.K.AHUJA

body2009
JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J.-This judgment shall dispose of the civil writ petition filed by the petitioner State under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the decision of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, hereafter after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, dated 14.4.2007, passed in OA No.666 of 2005. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as alleged by the petitioner, are that the respondent, also referred to as the applicant, was appointed in H.P. Administrative and Allied Services Competitive Examination, 1996 and he joined the Himachal Pradesh Police Service as Dy.S.P. on 21.4.1999. The applicant, in the application form submitted to the H.P. Public Service Commission, had clearly mentioned his date of birth as 9.3.1968, on the basis of Matriculation certificate. He alleged that he learnt about the mistake in records on 1.3.2004 when the applicant visited his ancestral village for registration of his daughter’s birth certificate in the Pariwar register of his Panchayat. He went to the astrologer, who had prepared the horoscope and on the basis of Parcha Yadasht, he learnt that his date of birth was 9.3.1969 and not 9.3.1968, as entered in the records. He filed a representation to his Department, vide his representation, dated 5.3.2004, which was rejected by his Department on 5.8.2004. Being aggrieved, he filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the Tribunal, who allowed the same vide its impugned order, dated 12.4.2007. Being aggrieved, the State has come up by way of the present writ petition for quashing of the said order. 3. We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner/State were that the Tribunal had not considered the relevant rules prescribing the period for correction of entry. No reference was made to the documentary evidence produced by the applicant and without considering the evidence or the period of limitation, the Tribunal passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent had supported the impugned order for the reasons given therein. 6. No reference was made to the documentary evidence produced by the applicant and without considering the evidence or the period of limitation, the Tribunal passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent had supported the impugned order for the reasons given therein. 6. It is true that the petitioner joined the service on 21.4.1999 and applied for correction of his date of birth within 5 years of his entering into the service. However, from a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal had not considered any documentary evidence and simply by observing that the representation for correction has been made within five years, it allowed the Original Application filed by the applicant for the correction of his date of birth entry. The only document sought to be relied upon by the applicant was the copy of the horoscope prepared by an astrologer on the basis of Parcha Yadasht and it was alleged in the Original Application filed before the Tribunal that the copy of the horoscope would be shown at the time of arguments. The said copy was required to be filed along with the Original Application filed before the Tribunal and the same should have been discussed by the Tribunal, as if it was sufficient to confirm the date of birth of the applicant and whether it could be relied upon or not. The applicant was not a an illiterate person or having joined a Class-IV service, but had joined as Dy.S.P., which is a gazetted post and he must be aware of his date of birth entry right from the beginning. The Tribunal has not even referred to the document in question and made no observations as to its authenticity or as to whether it is sufficient proof that the entry made earlier was incorrect and simply by observing that the application has been filed within time, it ordered correction of the birth entry, which order is not sustainable in the eyes of law since it is not based upon any reasoning or evidence on what basis the application was allowed. 7. 7. Without considering the question further, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is wrong and is liable to be set aside as there being no documentary proof to hold that the application for correction was liable to be allowed. 8. In view of the above discussion, we allow the writ petition filed by the State of H.P. and set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.