Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/3246/2019 of HIND NARESH Vs HIMACHAL PRADESH SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD AND OTHERS on 31 December 2019
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3246 of 2019 Decided on: 31.12.2019 Hind Naresh …Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education …Respondents and others Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 3246 of 2019Decided on: 31.12.2019
Hind Naresh
…Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education…Respondentsand others
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice.The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For the respondents:Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate, forrespondent No. 1.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General,with M/s. J.K. Verma, Adarsh K.Sharma, Ritta Goswami and Nand LalThakur,AdditionalAdvocatesGeneral, for respondents No. 2 and 3.
L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice.(Oral)
The petitioner, who is working with respondents No. 2 & 3-department since 28[th] December, 2006, has 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
approached this Court by way of the instant writ petitionseeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents tocorrect his date of birth as '10.07.1965', which has beenrecorded as '01.02.1965' in his Matriculation Certificate as wellas service record.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the petitioner was not within the knowledgeof the fact that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded inhis school and service record as '01.02.1965', but, recently, inthe year 2019, when he visited the office of his GramPanchayat, he came to know that his date of birth has beenrecorded as '10.07.1965' in the panchayat records. It is hisfurther contention that the actual date of birth of thepetitioner is '10.07.1965', as is also reflected in the admissionform/application (Annexure P-1), but the same has beenaltered as '01.02.1965' subsequently. It has, therefore, beenprayed that the writ petition be allowed and the respondentsbe directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in theschool records as well as the service record.
3
3. Contrarily, Mr. Adarsh K. Sharma, learnedAdditional Advocate General, submitted that as per Note 6under FRSR 56, an alteration of date of birth of a Governmentservant can be made only if a request in this regard is madewithin five years of his entry into Government service, but inthis case, the petitioner has not submitted any application forcorrection of entries in his service record till date. Hence, thequestion of issuing directions to the respondents to change thedate of birth of the petitioner in his service record, at thisstage, does not arise. He has, therefore, prayed for dismissalof the writ petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties andgone through the record carefully.
5. At the outset, we may add herein that when thepetitioner came to know about the wrong entry of his date ofbirth in the records, it was obligatory on his part to firstapproach the appropriate Authority for correction of thealleged wrong entries, though, within a reasonable time fromhis entry in service. But, the petitioner, without representinghis case before the appropriate Authority, has directly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.
6. Even otherwise, this Court would have issuedsome directions to the respondents in case the petitioner wouldhave approached the respondents, as is provided under FRSRNo. 56, within a period of five years from the date of hisappointment. At the time of appointment, the petitioner hadproduced his Matriculation Certificate, wherein his date ofbirth has been recorded as '01.02.1965'. He has not made anyapplication to the respondents to change the entries withrespect to his date of birth recorded in his service record tilldate, what to say of five years from the date of his entry intoservice. Therefore, the date of birth, as recorded in hisMatriculation Certificate as well as the service record, is to betaken into consideration for all intents and purposes.
7. Though, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered by the apexCourt in State of Punjab versus Mohinder Singh, AIR2005 Supreme Court 1868; and by this Court in Ms.
Shagun Dogra versus C.B.S.E. and others, Latest HLJ
2011 (HP) 77, but, both these judgments are not applicable inthe facts and circumstances of the instant case.
8. Under these circumstances, there is no substancein the writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. However,if the petitioner wants alteration in his date of birth for apurpose other than for his service record, it is for him toapproach the Civil Court.
9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arealso disposed of accordingly.
(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice
December 31, 2019
( rajni )
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge