Skip to content


Shiv Dan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B.C.W.P. 1814/82
Judge
Reported in1983WLN40
AppellantShiv Dan Singh
RespondentState of Rajasthan
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....unjustified--held, extra ordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked to perpetuate interpolation in service record.;the age of the petitioner at the time of entering into the service was 20 years, arid the correct entry made in the beginning in the service record was 29-11-27, and the alteration of the same to 29-11-29 was wholly unjustified and must have been made by someone for the benefit of the petitioner, i am not inclined to invoke extra-ordinary equitable jurisdiction to perpetuate the making of such inter-polation or alteration in the service record.;writ dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile ..........mr. calla, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the service record the date of birth recorded was 29.11.29, and the correction was made later on without any notice to him and consequently, the correction making it as 29.11.27 is against the principles of natural justice and cannot be taken note of. mr. calla submitted that in the correspondence which ensued between the police department and insurance department, the respondents themselves verified that the date of birth of the petitioner was 29.11.29, and that being so, they cannot be allowed to unilaterally alter or correct it.3. prima facie, the submissions of mr. calla are quite plausible. however, mr. khan, learned g.a., has placed before me the original service record, copies of which have been filed on the.....
Judgment:

G.M. Lodha, J.

1. The date of birth of the petitioner is in dispute, and the petitioner claims that he was born on 29.11.29, and, therefore, he should not be retired till he comes 55 years of age on the basis of calculation from 29.11.29.

2. Mr. Calla, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the service record the date of birth recorded was 29.11.29, and the correction was made later on without any notice to him and consequently, the correction making it as 29.11.27 is against the principles of natural justice and cannot be taken note of. Mr. Calla submitted that in the correspondence which ensued between the Police department and Insurance department, the respondents themselves verified that the date of birth of the petitioner was 29.11.29, and that being so, they cannot be allowed to unilaterally alter or correct it.

3. Prima facie, the submissions of Mr. Calla are quite plausible. However, Mr. Khan, learned G.A., has placed before me the original service record, copies of which have been filed on the record. A bare perusal of the original service record has exposed the myth and the entire pyramid cannot be sustained. The service record firstly contains health certificate in which the petitioner has put his thumb impression. In this service record, there is an important entry, which is as under:

His age according to his own statement is 20 years, and by appearance, about 20 years.

This health certificate is of 29.11.47.

4. Then comes the crucial entry under the caption, 'date of birth by Christian Era.'

5. I have car carefully perused this entry in original, and have also shown it to Mr. Calla because I am convinced that the date of birth as entered originally was 29.11.27 and not 29.11.29. It appears and is patent and not latent on perusal of this record that after the figures '192' '7' was written in the original form, but later on this '7' has been made'9'. Obviously, since it is for the advantage of the petitioner, as he gets two years more service, the submission of Mr. Khan that this must have been done by someone either at the instance of the petitioner or for the benefit of the petitioner, is quite sound, and deserves to be accepted. It is not without significance that immediately after this entry there is another entry which mentions as certified by Police Surgeon 20 years', and the original health certificate signed by the Police Surgeon on 29.11.47, in which the age has been verified by the Police Surgeon, and the petitioner has himself put his thumb impression which ensures its genuineness, goes to show that he himself gave the statement that his age is 20 years and further the appearance of the petitioner confirmed it clinically also. The fact that 20 years in the service Word remains in the original form, and has not undergone any change whatsoever lends strength to the submission of Mr. Khan that the original date of birth recorded in conformity with the statement of the petitioner given to the Health Surgeon being of 20 years was 29.11.27 and making it '1929' is an act of interpolation for giving him benefit of two additional years.

6. The above facts are so speaking and patent that they admit of no debate or dialogue and discussion. Mr. Calla and Mr. Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioner were also shown this entry and also the health certificate in original, because I am convinced that the petitioner Under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be allowed to take any legal technical plea based on his earlier conduct, by which for his own benefit some wrong has been done either at his instance or for his benefit like the one, in this case. Principle of natural justice pre-supposes that the petitioner woo wants to invoke them fully justifies it, as some great injustice has been done to him on account of violation of those principles. They cannot be treated as tools or weapons for perpetuating any wrong of which the petitioner was to take advantage.

7. Since, I am convinced that the age of the petitioner at the time of entering into the service was 20 years, and the correct entry made in the beginning in the service record was 29.11.27, and the alteration of the same to 29.11.29 was wholly unjustified and must have been made by someone for the benefit of the petitioner, I am not inclined to invoke extra-ordinary equitable jurisdiction to perpetuate the making of such interpolation or alteration in the service record.

8. Mr. Khan wanted to show to me the record of Order Book of the Police Department for the year 1948, in which at Section No. 188 it is mentioned that the enlistment of the petitioner was done and his age has been mentioned as 20 years. However, it will be unnecessary to travel into any other record, because I am convinced that the very bedrock and the foundation of the allegation that the original entry was 29.11.27 is not only incorrect, but further based on some inter-polation, which is visible to a naked eye and is patent. Tainted hands cannot be allowed to touch pure fountains of Justice.

9. The result of the above discussion is that the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.

10. The ad-interim stay order passed by this Court is vacated. However, for the time petitioner has served on account of stay order, he will be allowed his salary.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //