Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1006 (ALL)

Neeraj Singh v. State of U. P. & Ors.

2013-04-02

ARUN TANDON

body2013
Arun Tandon, J.;— Civil Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No. 196092 of 2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Cause shown for the absence of the counsel for the petitioner on 01.03.2011 is to the satisfaction of the Court. Recall application is allowed. The order dated 01.03.2011 is recalled. The Writ petition is restored to its original number. Order on the Petition Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order dated 26.12.2003 (annexure no. 7 to the writ petition). The facts on record are as follows:- An advertisement was published by the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand- II, Panna Devi, Aligarh, inviting applications for appointment on eight posts of Chaukidar and two posts of Cleaner, in the year 2003. The eligibility conditions prescribed were that a candidate must be 18 years of age and not more than 35 years of age. The last date for submission of applications was 22nd June, 2003. The petitioner submitted his application in response to the said advertisement in the month of June, 2003. Alongwith his application the petitioner enclosed his Class 8 pass marksheet which disclosed his date of birth as 12.12.1985. On the basis of said document the petitioner was selected and was also offered appointment. Subsequently a complaint was received that the petitioner had appeared in the High School Examination in the year 2002. He had failed in the said examination. In the High School Marksheet, issued to the petitioner, his date of birth was recorded as 12.02.1988 and therefore on the relevant cut-of-date in terms of the advertisement, he was not 18 years of age. He was ineligible to be selected. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner after verification of the fact that he had failed in the High School Examination of the year 2002 and that the records of the High School Examination of the year 2002 disclose that his date of birth was 12.02.1988. The petitioner submitted his reply on 16.12.2003. It was stated that he had appeared in the High School Examination, 2002 and there was a mistake in the date of birth as described in the marksheet which was issued in respect of the said examination. He contended that his date of birth as per Class 8 Transfer certificate be accepted. The petitioner submitted his reply on 16.12.2003. It was stated that he had appeared in the High School Examination, 2002 and there was a mistake in the date of birth as described in the marksheet which was issued in respect of the said examination. He contended that his date of birth as per Class 8 Transfer certificate be accepted. The Executive Engineer after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and after verification that the petitioner had appeared in the High School Examination of 2002, thereunder he failed and the marksheet issued in respect of the High School Examination recorded his date of birth as 12.02.1988, proceeded to hold that the petitioner was guilty of suppression of two facts (a) of his having appeared in the High School Examination of 2002 and having failed, and (b) non disclosure of his correct date of birth as recorded in the High School Marksheet. He further recorded that the petitioner was under age on the relevant date. His appointment was therefore held to be illegal and the same has accordingly been cancelled under order dated 26.12.2003. The authority has also referred to the verification of the High School Marksheet from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education as well as to the undertaking given by the petitioner at the time of submission of his application form that if any fact is found to be incorrect, as disclosed in the application, his candidature can be rejected at any point of time. The petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2004, challenging the said order, relying upon his Class 8 Transfer Certificate for disputing the correctness of the date birth as recorded in the High School marksheet. The writ petition came to be dismissed in default on 01.03.2011. Restoration application has been filed by another counsel alongwith an application for condonation of delay, which has been allowed, today, by the Court. Supplementary affidavit has been filed on 28.01.2013 and for the first time the petitioner has referred to the order passed in writ petition no. 30712 of 2008, filed by the petitioner, decided on 04.07.2008. Under the order of the Court, the representation made by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the High School certificate, was directed to be considered. 30712 of 2008, filed by the petitioner, decided on 04.07.2008. Under the order of the Court, the representation made by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the High School certificate, was directed to be considered. On the said representation of the petitioner, the Regional Secretary of the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office, Meerut has issued an order on 11.08.2009 making corrections in the High School Marksheet and Certificate of the petitioner of the year 2003. On this basis it is contended before this Court that the order passed in the year 2003, impugned in the writ petition has become bad. In my opinion the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. Absolutely no document has been brought on record which could demonstrate that any correction has been made in the High School Marksheet which was issued to the petitioner with respect to Board Examination of 2002. The marksheet of 2003 is not relevant for our purposes inasmuch as the selection of the petitioner was set aside with reference to High School Marksheet of the year 2002 Examination. Even otherwise, an order passed six years subsequent to the impugned order making corrections in the High School certificate will not render the order of the authority bad, which was based on the documents that were available with the authority at the relevant time. What is further surprising to note, is that the petitioner filed writ petition in the year 2008 for getting his representation decided in the matter of correction in the High School certificate. Without recording any relevant fact, the Regional Secretary has passed the order for correction. An application for correction in the High School and Intermediate Examination Marksheet/Certificate is regulated by Regulation 7 Chapter 3 part 2B of the Regulations under the Intermediate Regulation Act. An application for correction can be made within two years of the issuance of the marksheet/certificate, provided a copy of the application within the said period is forwarded to the Board's Office by Registered Post. Otherwise, correction in the marksheet/certificate is prohibited by law. In absence of compliance of the said statutory provision, no representation was maintainable. In absence of relevant fact having been recorded for exercise of power of correction in terms of Regulation 7 Chapter 3 Part 2B, this Court, finds no substance in the correction order. Otherwise, correction in the marksheet/certificate is prohibited by law. In absence of compliance of the said statutory provision, no representation was maintainable. In absence of relevant fact having been recorded for exercise of power of correction in terms of Regulation 7 Chapter 3 Part 2B, this Court, finds no substance in the correction order. In the facts of the case, the authorities are justified in recording in the impugned order that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in his application qua his having appeared in High School Examination, 2002 and having failed therein as also of not disclosing that in his High School marksheet, of the 2002 examination his date of birth was recorded as 12.02.1988, according to which the petitioner was under age. In my opinion no interference is required within the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed. _____________