Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1302 (GAU)

John Rammawia Zotlang v. State of Mizoram

2019-11-29

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. Lalchhanhima Sailo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 2. The matter pertains to the retirement of the petitioner on 31.10.2017, in terms of the corrected date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that his date of birth is 18.10.1960. However, the petitioner's date of birth was corrected arbitrarily to 10.10.1957. 3. The petitioner's case in brief is that he was temporarily appointed as Junior Engineer (JE) in the PWD on officiating basis, in the scale of pay of Rs. 425-15-500-EB-15-EB-15-560-20-700 as admissible as per rules, vide Order dated 10.03.1981. In the service book that had been opened on 09.06.1984, the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 18.10.1960. However, the process for change of date of birth of the petitioner was initiated by the State Government in the year 2015 and after enquiry, the Government accepted the date of birth of the petitioner to be 10.10.1957. The petitioner being aggrieved by his premature retirement on 30.10.2017, has filed the present writ petition praying that his date of birth should be recorded as 18.10.1960 and he should be allowed to continue in service till 31.10.2020. 4. The writ petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's date of birth has been recorded in the service book as 18.10.1960, on the basis of a School certificate dated 11.03.1986, issued by the Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya, No.1 School, Gwalior, which is Annexure-4 in the writ petition. He submits that besides the above, various notifications issued by the PWD, passport, Election Commission of India Identity card, Pan card, driving license and Aadhar card all show that the petitioner's date of birth as 18.10.1960. He submits that as all the documents that have been made by public authorities in respect of the petitioner had shown the petitioner's date of birth to be 18.10.1960, the State respondents could not have changed the petitioner's date of birth, as recorded in the service book. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and Ors. Vs. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465 and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Amar Nath Tewari vs. District Inspector of Schools, Sultnapur and Ors., (2010) 78 AllLR 331 . 5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner also submits that as per the birth certificate issued by North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Govt. of Delhi on 31.08.2019, the date of birth of the petitioner is 18.10.1960. Accordingly, as all the documents required under FR 56 Note 6, for proving the date of birth of the petitioner, has shown the petitioner's date of birth as 18.10.1960, the petitioner's date of birth has to be accepted as 18.10.1960. 6. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that as per the official records in the Administrative Department, the date of birth of the petitioner, from the date of his entry to Government service has always been 10.10.1957. However, the petitioner appears to have tampered his date of birth in the service book, as the petitioner had taken out his original service book from the Confidential Branch of the PWD on 31.07.2008, without the consent or permission of the competent authority. She also submits that the proof of the above fact is provided in the Letters dated 23.04.2014, 20.06.2014 and 01.12.2014 issued by the Deputy Director, (Administration) For E-in-C, PWD, asking the petitioner to return the original service book. The learned Government Advocate also submits that the petitioner returned the original service book only after 6 years 5 months. The service book was thereafter sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Aizawl. The examination report in the FSL dated 12.03.2015 states that there was over-writing in the entries recorded in the service book and the petitioner's date of birth was altered. She also submits that if the petitioner's date of birth was 18.10.1960, he would be 1 year 3 months younger than his younger brother, Shri. Anthony Lianzuala, ICAS, who was in the Central Service. 7. The learned Government Advocate also submits that the ACRs of the petitioner shows that his date of birth was 10.10.1957. She also submits that if the petitioner's date of birth was 18.10.1960, he would be 1 year 3 months younger than his younger brother, Shri. Anthony Lianzuala, ICAS, who was in the Central Service. 7. The learned Government Advocate also submits that the ACRs of the petitioner shows that his date of birth was 10.10.1957. Also in the interse-seniority list and other documents issued by the PWD, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 10.10.1957. The learned Government Advocate also submits that in pursuance to para 19 of the Order dated 27.10.2017 passed by this Court regarding, an enquiry was made by the State respondents with regard to the genuiness of the certificate dated 11.03.1986 issued by the Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 School, Gwalior (Annexure-4 of the writ petition). The Principal of Kendriya Vidhyalaya No. 1 School, Gwalior wrote back, vide Letter dated 15.02.2018, stating the date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in the students scholar register, at page 159, was 18.10.1956. The learned Government Advocate also submits that FR 56 Note 6 has been violated by the petitioner as he has stolen his service book and altered his date of birth in the service book. Further, the petitioner would have been below 21 years of age at the time of joining the PWD as AE, which is the qualifying age for appointment as per the Mizoram PWD, PHE, Power and Electricity Departments (Group 'B' posts) Recruitment Rules, 1976, if his date of birth was 18.10.1960. 8. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 supports the submission of the learned counsel for the State respondents and also submits that the petitioner's younger brother Anthony Lianzuala had retired in July 2019 while being in the Indian Civil Accounts Service. He accordingly submits that the petitioner, who is the elder brother of Anthony Lianzuala could not have a date of birth prior to the date of birth of his younger brother. 9. He also submits that if the petitioner's date of birth is accepted to be 18.10.1960, then he would have been under age at the time of joining the PWD as J.E on 10.03.1981 on contract basis and as Assistant Engineer as per Rules on 29.08.1981, which would be in violation of the Recruitment Rules and Note 5 of FR 56. 10. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. It would be profitable to reproduce para Nos. 1 to 15 of the Order dated 27.10.2017 passed by this Court, which is as follows:- " Heard Mr. P.C. Prusty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Also heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Vanlalhriatpuii, learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 2. The petitioner is a State Government employee and presently serving as Chief Engineer (Roads), PWD. Pursuant to the approval of the DP and AR (GSW) under their I.D. No. GSW.25/2016/72 dated 16.11.2016, the Government of Mizoram in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Civil Service Wing) by the impugned Order bearing No. A.19012/120/2010-P&AR (CSW) dated 17.02.2017 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), accepted the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.10.1957 in his service record. Following the same, the Director of Accounts and Treasuries, Government of Mizoram vide No. CCA/PS/282 dated 23.08.2017 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) issued the Pay Slip to the petitioner, wherein it has been specified that he shall retire from service on 30.10.2017. Being aggrieved with the same the petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for quashing both the aforesaid order dated 17.02.2017 and the pay slip dated 23.08.2017, Annexures-12 and 13 to the writ petition along with an interim prayer for stay of the said order and pay slip. 3. According to the petitioner, as his date of birth is 18.10.1960, he has three more years of service and he shall retire from service only on 31.10.2020, on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years, which is the present retirement age of Government employees in the State of Mizoram. According to the petitioner, all along his date of birth has been shown in the service record as 18.10.1960 and not as 10.10.1957. According to the petitioner, all along his date of birth has been shown in the service record as 18.10.1960 and not as 10.10.1957. To show his date of birth as 18.10.1960, the petitioner has annexed copy of his School Certificate issued by the authorities of the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gwalior on 11.03.1986, copy of his up-to date Passport, initially issued on 08.05.2007, copies of his Voter Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India on 13.01.2015, Aadhar Card issued by the Government of India, PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department, Government of India and his Driving Licence, issued by the Government of Mizoram on 03.01.1997. 4. The petitioner contended that the State respondents after so many years of his Government service, unilaterally without any valid reason, in violation of the established principle of law, that too at the last moment and just a few years before his actual date retirement from service, cannot alter his date of birth in his service career accepting it as 10.10.1957 by the impugned order dated 17.02.2017; since all along in his service record and career, his date of birth has been accepted by the State respondents as 18.10.1960. In support of his argument, Mr. P.C. Prusty, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon by the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465 , and State of Uttaranchal and Ors. Vs. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477 . 5. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submits that the petitioner's actual date of birth is 10.10.1957 and had the State respondents counted his date of birth as on 18.10.1960, he could not have joined the Government service in PWD as a Junior Engineer on 10.03.1981, since on his said date of joining on 10.03.1981, he would not have completed the age of 21 years as the minimum age required for joining Government service under FR 56. He also stated that the petitioner has not placed any such Government order relaxing his age at the time of his joining the Government service on 10.03.1981. 6. Learned senior counsel, Mr. He also stated that the petitioner has not placed any such Government order relaxing his age at the time of his joining the Government service on 10.03.1981. 6. Learned senior counsel, Mr. C. Lalramzauva also brought to the notice of the Court that in the second provisional inter-se-seniority of Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Engineer of Group 'B' Officer under the PWD published in the Order dated 01.08.1986, petitioner's date of birth was shown as 10.10.1957. Similarly, in the Office Memorandum dated 15.02.1989 with regard to the second provisional inter-se-seniority list of Executive Engineer/Architect of Group 'A' Officer under the PWD, petitioner's date of birth was shown as 10.10.1957. He also placed that in the Classified List of the Mizoram PWD, Engineering Officers and Staff as on 31.03.1990, in the list of Executive Engineers, petitioner's date of birth was shown as 10.10.1957. He further placed before the Court that in the list of Indian Civil Accounts Service-Civil List as on 20.07.2016, the date of birth of the younger brother of the petitioner Mr. Anthony Lianzuala has been shown as 23.07.1959. 7. Learned senior counsel for the private respondent Nos. 4 to 6 also submitted that in the ACR of the petitioner during the year ending on 31.08.1983, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 10.10.1957 and that the petitioner never objected to his said date of birth recorded as 10.10.1957. The Senior counsel also submitted that though in the service book and the service card under Form 25-B of the petitioner, his date of birth is reflected as 18.10.1960, but the FSL report of his said service book and service card clearly reveals that those entries have been manipulated at a later stage, by writing it with different ink, by a different person. 8. As such, Mr. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. counsel submitted that by the impugned Order dated 17.02.2017, the respondent authorities have correctly accepted the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.10.1957 and argued that petitioner's date of birth should be accepted only as 10.10.1957 and not 18.10.1960. With regard to interim order regarding correction of date of birth of the petitioner, Mr. Lalramzauva placed reliance in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 . 9. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent Nos. With regard to interim order regarding correction of date of birth of the petitioner, Mr. Lalramzauva placed reliance in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 . 9. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have produced the original records in which the State respondents issued the impugned Order dated 17.02.2017, accepting the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.10.1957. 10. Record of the respondents reveals that regarding the date of birth of the petitioner, a complaint was lodged before the Chief Secretary and the Chief Vigilance Officer, DP and AR in March, 2015, on the basis of which the respondents decided to verify and examine the service book of the petitioner through FSL and accordingly, forwarded the service book of the petitioner along with his service card to the FSL for its necessary examination and verification. The respondents also directed the petitioner to place his original Birth Certificate, Baptismal Certificate, HSLC, HSSLC and Graduation Certificate. 11. The FSL report dated 12.03.2015 reflects that the existing date of birth in figures and words found in the service book and service card of the petitioner is not the original word entered at the time of entering in his service book and it is found that the writing ink showed different in tint and luster. Said FSL report also clarified that the formation of some letters found in his service book to be different in comparison to the other handwriting in it. 12. It is also seen from the record of the case that the petitioner after a long period submitted a certificate of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gwalior issued by its authorities on 11.03.1986 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) to show that as recorded in the said school his date of birth is 18.10.1960 and that he was a bonafide student of Class-XI in the said school with Scholar No. 2339 during the year 1973-1974. The petitioner in his additional affidavit has annexed a copy of duplicate certificate issued in his name by the Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, under Serial No. AIC/74/12729/2094 dated 26.11.1982 certifying that the petitioner passed All India Higher Secondary (Three Years Course) Examination in 1974 with Roll No. 10768 in First Division and that he was born on 18.10.1960 (Annexure-15 to the petitioner's Additional Affidavit). The petitioner has also annexed a copy of another duplicate certificate issued by the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi issued on 04.12.1981, which certifies that he was conferred with the Degree of Bachelor Technology in Civil Engineering by the said Institute as he had successfully completed the same with 5.59 Grading Point Average on a 10 point scale and the said certificate was signed by one Arjan Singh, Chairman of the Board of Governors, one Mr. O.P Jain, Director and Mr. Amarjit Singh, Registrar of the said Institute (Annexure-16 to the petitioner's Additional Affidavit). The petitioner has further annexed a communication under No. CBSE/Coord/191 dated 17.10.2017 issued by the Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, clarifying that the 10+2 system of education in CBSE was started w.e.f. 1977 at Class X and from 1979 at Class XII level and prior to the year 1977, the Higher Secondary Examination 11th class (Three Years Course) system was in operation (Annexure-17 to the petitioner's Additional Affidavit). 13. Record of the case shows that the petitioner was holding his Service Book during the years 2008 to 2015. But the record of the State respondents placed before the Court with regard to the impugned Order of 17th February 2017, accepting the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.10.1957 clearly reveals that only in (i) the provisional inter-se-seniority list of Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Engineer of the PWD dated 01.08.1986, (ii) the provisional inter-se-seniority list of the Executive Engineer/Architect dated 15.02.1989 of the PWD, (iii) the ACR of the petitioner for the year ending 31.03.1983 and (iv) the Classified List of Mizoram PWD, Engineering Officer and Staff as on 31.03.1990, the date of birth of the petitioner was reflected as 10.10.1957. Excepting those four in all other cases including (a) the representation filed by the petitioner against the date of birth recorded in the provisional inter-se-seniority list dated 01.08.1986, (b) the final inter-se-seniority list of Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Engineer dated 03.10.1990, (c) the final inter-se-seniority list of Senior Administrative Grade of Mizoram Engineering Service of PWD Cadre and further (d) in his ACRs for the years ending in March, 1987 to March 2007, the date of his birth of the petitioner is reflected as 18.10.1960. Moreover, in the State respondents' own Notification under No. A.23018/1/93-PW dated 04.03.2010 in the Final Seniority List of Senior Administrative Grade of Mizoram Engineering Service, i.e. Superintending Engineer (Graduate) under PW Cadre (Civil) as on 21.02.2010 the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 18.10.1960 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The said Notification dated 04.03.2010 clearly reflects that the same was issued by the PWD, Government of Mizoram on the basis of the Office Memorandum of the DP and AR (GSW) dated 02.02.2010 and none of the respondents, at any stage objected regarding the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.10.1960. 14. Considered the submissions of the parties, documents and record placed before the Court and the Judgments relied by them. Although the petitioner has made a prayer for quashing the pay slip, issued in his name, issued by the Director of Accounts and Treasuries, Government of Mizoram vide No. CCA/PS/282 dated 23.08.2017 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) including interim prayer for stay of the same, but, neither its issuing authority nor its concerned authority has been made a party respondent in the case by the petitioner. As such the prayer of the petitioner with regard to the said paid slip dated 23.08.2017 cannot be considered. 15. Though Mr. As such the prayer of the petitioner with regard to the said paid slip dated 23.08.2017 cannot be considered. 15. Though Mr. P.C. Prusty, learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of (i) the School Certificate issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gwalior dated 11.03.1986 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and (ii) the Duplicate Pass Certificate of All India Higher Secondary (Three Years Course) Examination, 1974 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education on 26.11.1982 (Annexure-15 to the Additional Affidavit of the petitioner) submits that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 18.10.1960, but if it those Certificates dated 11.03.1986 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and the Duplicate Pass Certificate of the CBSE (Annexure-15 to the Additional Affidavit of the petitioner) of the petitioner are to be accepted as a whole, then in such a situation, it is to be concluded that the petitioner passed his Class-X at the age of 12 plus, pursued his Class-XI during the year 1973-74 at his age of 12 plus and 13 plus and further passed his Class-XI All India Higher Secondary (Three Years course) Examination, 1974 of CBSE much before completion of his 14 of years on 18.10.1974. Moreover, in the said circumstances, the petitioner was in Class-I during the year 1963-64 and took his admission in Class-I, at his age of 2 years plus and not even three years old, as he completed three years only on 18th October, 1963, which is not believable without any authentic document. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he was given double or triple promotion during his school days, as he neither pleaded with the said facts nor placed any document/certificate in that regard. The FSL report dated 12.03.2015 with regard to the service book and the service card of the petitioner, as available with the record produced by the State respondents clearly reveals that in those records the date of birth of the petitioner has been doctored and tampered with." 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri (supra) and the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Amar Nath Tewari vs. District Inspector of Schools, Sultnapur and Ors. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri (supra) and the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Amar Nath Tewari vs. District Inspector of Schools, Sultnapur and Ors. (supra) to support his submission that the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book, at the time of entry into service has to be given due sanctity and the same cannot be altered or modified either at the instance of the employee or at the instance of the employer. In the case of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri (supra), the Apex Court did not allow the prayer of the Government employee to correct his date of birth after 35 years of service, in view of a Service Rule, which barred correction of date of birth. It was in the above context that the Apex Court has held that the date of birth recorded in the Service Book, at the time of entry into Government Service, shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth as the case may be for all purposes and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date of birth in any circumstance. In the case of Amar Nath Tewari vs. District Inspector of Schools, Sultnapur and Ors., (supra), the Allahabad High Court had not allowed the change of the date of birth in the Service Book by the School Authorities as the Service Rules provided that the date of birth or the age recorded in the Service Book at the time of entry into Government service shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth for all purposes in relation to his service. 13. The uncontroverted facts show that the petitioner had, without the consent and permission of the Administrative Department of the PWD taken out his original service book and kept it in his possession for approximately 6 years 5 months. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report states that there was overwriting in the entries entered in the service book. 13. The uncontroverted facts show that the petitioner had, without the consent and permission of the Administrative Department of the PWD taken out his original service book and kept it in his possession for approximately 6 years 5 months. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report states that there was overwriting in the entries entered in the service book. The extract of the petitioner's service book, with regard to Entry No. 6, which has been marked as 'Q' by the FSL is reproduced below:- "Date of birth by Christian Era and wherever possible also in Saka Era (both in Words and figures)" Eighteenth October Nineteen Hundred Sixty (18.10.1960). 14. The FSL report dated 12.03.2015 issued by the Asst. Director, FSL, Govt. of Mizoram, which has not been controverted states as follows:- "Sub: Examination report. Ref: Your Memo no. GSW.26/2015/4041 dt.10th Mar.2015. Sir, The Questioned writings marked here as Q in the Service Book of John Rammawia had been carefully and thoroughly examined with the help of various scientific equipments like, Docucenter expert, Stereo Microscope and Magnifier, available in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mizoram. EXAMINATION REPORT AND FINDINGS It is found that the existing Date of Birth figures and word found in the Service Book of John Rammawia marked here as Q is not the original Word entered at the time of entering the Service Book. After careful examination of the suspected area marked here as Q and others handwriting with the help of the above mentioned scientific equipments, it is observed that the writing ink showed different in tint and luster. Also, execution and formation of letter 'E', shoulder of letter 'h', 'n', formation of outward beginning of letter 'd' are all found different in the suspect area with others hand writings in the Service Book. All the above mentioned writing characteristic dissimilarities are significant and sufficient to come to a definite conclusion." The above findings of the FSL report clearly proves the fact that the petitioner's date of birth in the service book has been tampered with. 15. All the above mentioned writing characteristic dissimilarities are significant and sufficient to come to a definite conclusion." The above findings of the FSL report clearly proves the fact that the petitioner's date of birth in the service book has been tampered with. 15. Though the petitioner has relied upon the Certificate dated 11.03.1986, issued by the Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 School, Gwalior (Annexure-4) to support his case that his date of birth was correctly recorded in the service book, the same cannot be accepted in view of the subsequent Letter dated 15.02.2018 issued by Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 School, Gwalior, which is to the effect that the petitioner date of birth as per the "student scholar register" at page 159 was 18.10.1956. Thus, there is a difference in the date of birth of the petitioner as per the documents submitted by the petitioner and the letter issued by the Principal of the same School. 16. The additional affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that he was temporarily appointed as Junior Engineer in the PWD, Mizoram on 10.03.1981 and appointed as Assistant Engineer, PWD on 29.08.1981 as per Rules. If the petitioner's date of birth was 18.10.1960, then the petitioner would have been less than 21 years of age at the time he joined Government service, which is not permissible, as the minimum age of entry into Government service was 21 years as per the Mizoram PWD, PHE, Power and Electricity Departments (Group 'B' posts) Recruitment Rules, 1976. As the petitioner could not have been less than 21 years at the time of his appointment as AE in the PWD, the petitioner's date of birth cannot be 18.10.1960. Assuming the petitioner's date of birth is 18.10.1960, this Court holds that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take benefit from the same, as the benefit would have arisen from a fraud played upon the State Government and the Recruitment Rules in force. This Court cannot rely upon the date of birth recorded in the petitioner's Passport, Election Commission of India Identity Card, Pan Card, Driving License and Adhaar Card, etc. to prove that the petitioner's date of birth is 18.10.1960, as the same have been issued at a later date and they can be made without their being strict proof of the petitioner's date of birth. to prove that the petitioner's date of birth is 18.10.1960, as the same have been issued at a later date and they can be made without their being strict proof of the petitioner's date of birth. The petitioner has submitted a certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, which certifies that the petitioner was born on 18.10.1960. However, the petitioner has failed to submit a copy of the certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education showing that he has passed his All India Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1974, which are the usual certificates issued and not a certificate certifying only the age of an examinee. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has by way of an affidavit submitted a certificate issued by the North Delhi, Municipal Corporation, Government of Delhi, issued on 31.08.2019 showing that the petitioner's date of birth was 18.10.1960. This document cannot be taken into consideration by this Court as this was never produced by the petitioner at any time prior to the filing of the additional affidavit on 25.09.2019. Further, the said certificate issued on 31.08.2019 would have to be proved by way of adducing evidence and the alleged author of the same would have to be prove the said certificate in a Civil Court. Also, as the records available with the Department has recorded the date of birth of the petitioner to be 10.10.1957, this Court does not find any reason to doubt the veracity of the same. 18. In the case of R.S. Kallolimath Vs. State of Mysore and Another, (1977) 3 SCC 425 , the Apex Court has held that the State is not precluded merely refusing the date of birth of its employee in the service register by holding an inquiry if their exist sufficient reasons for holding such inquiry and re-fixing his date of birth. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to prove that his date of birth, at the time of his joining the service, was 18.10.1960. 19. Para 14(3) of the affidavit filed by the State respondents, Para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit filed I.A. (C) No. 108/2017 filed by the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 is to the effect that the younger brother of the petitioner is one Mr. Anthony Lianzuala, who is a Indian Civil Accounts Service (ICAS) Officer. 19. Para 14(3) of the affidavit filed by the State respondents, Para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit filed I.A. (C) No. 108/2017 filed by the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 is to the effect that the younger brother of the petitioner is one Mr. Anthony Lianzuala, who is a Indian Civil Accounts Service (ICAS) Officer. As per the Civil List of ICAS as on 20.07.2016, published by the Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, the date of birth of Mr. Anthony Lianzuala is 23.07.1959. The affidavits of the respondent thus state that if the claim of the writ petitioner that his correct date of birth is 18.10.1960, he will be younger than his younger brother Anthony Lianzuala, whose date of birth is 23.07.1959. This fact had also been taken note of by this Court in paragraph 6 of the Order dated 27.10.2017 passed by this Court. Also, this Court, vide Order dated 15.05.2019 passed in I.A. No. 30/2019, had directed the petitioner's counsel to obtain instructions from the petitioner as to whether Mr. Anthony Lianzuala is the younger brother or the elder brother of the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel has till date not been able to answer the query posed by this Court, as to whether Mr. Anthony Lianzuala is the younger brother or the elder brother of the petitioner, though it is not denied by the petitioner's counsel that Mr. Anthony Lianzuala is the brother of the petitioner. It has also been stated at the bar at this stage that Mr. Anthony Lianzuala has retired from Government service on superannuation pension on 31.07.2019. 20. The above averments made by the respondents in their affidavits has not been controverted by the petitioner either verbally or by way of any affidavit till today, though the petitioner's counsel had been given time to file affidavit to clarify whether the petitioner was the younger or elder brother of Mr. Anthony Lianzuala. The only reply given by the petitioner's counsel to the query made by this Court and to the specific averments made by the respondents is to the effect that the date of birth of the petitioner is as per the documents annexed to the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel has also stated that as per instructions, the petitioner will not be filing any affidavit, clarifying whether he is the younger or elder brother of Mr. The petitioner's counsel has also stated that as per instructions, the petitioner will not be filing any affidavit, clarifying whether he is the younger or elder brother of Mr. Anthony Lianzuala. 21. In the case of Naseem Bano vs. State of U.P., (1993) Supp4 SCC 46, the Apex Court has held that when averments are not controverted, the High Court should proceed on the basis that the said averments have been admitted. In the present case, the petitioner has not deemed it fit or appropriate to give a direct and clear reply to the query raised by this Court in the Order dated 15.05.2009 passed in I.A. No. 30/2019. The petitioner has also declined to file an affidavit. Thus, by following the decision of the Apex Court in Naseem Bano vs. State of U.P. (supra), this Court finds that the averments made by the respondents that the petitioner is the elder brother of Mr. Anthony Lianzuala is deemed to be admitted. Due to the petitioner not clarifying whether he is the elder/younger of Mr. Anthony Lianzuala, an adverse inference can be drawn to the effect that the petitioner is the elder brother of Mr. Anthony Lianzuala, who retired on superannuation pension from the Indian Civil Accounts Service, Government of India in July, 2019 and whose date of birth is 23.07.1959. 22. In the case of K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Apex Court has held that the party, who invokes the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226 is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose facts." If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of the writ Court would become impossible......The Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent the abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an application requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an application requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. This Court, on considering the fact that the petitioner has chosen to keep silent not only on the averments made by the respondents, but also to the query raised by this Court, with regard to whether the petitioner is the elder or younger brother of the Sh. Anthony Lianzuala, this Court finds that the petitioner is playing hide and seek with facts. He is deliberately not answering the issue, despite not denying the fact that he is the brother of Sh. Anthony Lianzuala. This blatant suppression of facts amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and also in the administration of justice. 23. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the State respondents accepting the date of birth of the petitioner to be 10.10.1957. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Cost of Rs. 10,000/- is also imposed upon the petitioner, which should be deposited in the Registry of this Court, within a month from today.