C.G. Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal vs Raviraj Xalxo
2022 Latest Caselaw 6481 Chatt

                                            1


                                                                              NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                   SA No. 243 of 2019

         C.G. Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur, R/o Pension Bada,
          Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                     ---- Appellant
                                         Versus
        1. Raviraj Xalxo S/o Thewodar Xalxo, Aged About 22 Years R/o A - 34,
           Sant Near Joseph Colony , Sant Joseph English Medium, Amlidih,
           Post Ravigram, Telibandha, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
           (Plaintiff ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
        2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Education,
           Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 2),
           District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                 ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

31/10/2022

1. The instant is a second appeal assailing the judgment and decree

passed by the First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.120A/2017

dated 13.04.2018. Vide the said impugned judgment and decree the

First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed

by the 9th Civil Judge Class-II Raipur, in civil suit No. 247A/2016

dated 05.10.2017.

2. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 05.10.2017 had

allowed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction directing the

appellant herein i.e. the C.G. Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur for

correction for the date of birth of the respondent No.1-plaintiff from

08.12.1992 to 08.12.1993.

3. The solitary ground of challenge by the appellant in assailing the two

judgment and decree was the fact that under the Rules the claimant

could have moved an application for correction of date of birth within

a stipulated period of three years. In the instant case the plaintiff had

not approached the appellant-Board within the stipulated three years

time. Therefore the claim was rejected by the Board and

subsequently the Board could not have entertained the same.

4. The ground raised by the appellant has been threshed out by the

trial Court by deciding the civil suit itself, which stood decreed on

05.10.2017. The said contention was further rejected by the First

Appellate Court also with the passing of the impugned judgment and

decree by the First Appellate Court on 13.04.2018. Thus, there is a

concurrent finding of facts by the two Courts below i.e. the Court of

the 9th Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in civil suit No. 247A/2016

decided on 05.10.2017, which was further affirmed vide judgment

and decree dated 13.04.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 120A/2017.

5. Given the fact that there is a concurrent finding of fact by the two

Courts below, this Court does not find any substantial question of law

raised by the appellant in the present appeal. The appeal thus

stands rejected affirming the judgment and decree passed by the

First Appellate Court as also by the trial Court.

6. The Registry is directed to draw a decree accordingly.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved