Uttarakhand High Court
Ram Kishore Rai vs G.B. Pant Agriculture And ... on 26 February, 2021
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3300 of 2018
Ram Kishore Rai ....... Petitioner
Vs.
G.B. Pant Agriculture and Technology University Pant Nagar &
others
......Respondents
Present: Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Soniya Chawla, Advocate for the respondents.
Judgment
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Petitioner by way of instant petition seeks directions that
his correct date of birth 15.07.1965 be recorded in all the official
records, and order dated 07.09.2018 (Annexure No.13) passed by
respondent no. 3 be quashed, by which the earlier order for correcting
the date of birth of the petitioner has been cancelled.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been working in
the establishment of respondent no. 1 G.B. Pant Agriculture and
Technology University, Pant Nagar (for short "the University"). In the
offer letter dated 06.03.1990, his date of birth was mentioned as
15.07.1958; in other documents, his date of birth was recorded as
17.07.1965. Petitioner was asked to clarify about it. Thereafter, the
petitioner submitted that, according to high school certificate, his date
of birth is 15.07.1965, which as such, is recorded in the GPF, Group
Insurance and other documents with the University. After considering
the matter, by an order dated 07.08.2018 (Annexure No. 8), respondent
no. 3 directed that the date of birth of the petitioner be recorded as
15.07.1965 in all the records, but subsequently, respondent no. 3 on
07.09.2018 cancelled his own order dated 07.08.2018 raising doubts
about the date of birth of the petitioner. It is impugned here.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner worked as a daily wager with the University. In some of his
official records, his date of birth is recorded as 15.07.1965, but due to
error in some other documents, his date of birth has been differently
noted. It is argued that now the University has verified the date of birth
of the petitioner from Bihar School Examination Board, and it has now
been confirmed that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.07.1965. In
fact, it is argued that the respondents by way of a supplementary
counter affidavit have submitted record to that effect. Therefore, it is
submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that, in
fact, after order dated 07.09.2018, the University verified the date of
birth of the petitioner from Bihar School Examination Board and it has
now been confirmed that the date of birth of the petitioner is
15.07.1965. In its counter affidavit initially, the respondents have
raised doubts about the date of birth of the petitioner, and in paragraph
no. 9 of the counter affidavit, it was recorded that the respondents
contemplate to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that in view of the different dates of birth recorded in the
official records, the University at that time contemplated for
proceeding departmentally against the petitioner, but now since the
date of birth of the petitioner has been confirmed from the Bihar
School Examination Board, the respondents are not contemplating to
proceed against the petitioner on this count. Now, there is no occasion
to proceed against the petitioner.
5. It is admitted that, according to the Rules, the date of birth
shall be recorded in the official record as mentioned in the high school
examination certificate. It is also admitted that different date of births
were recorded in the official records of the petitioner, but when asked
to explain, it is a fact that the petitioner produced his high school
certificate to explain that his date of birth is 15.07.1965.This is the date
of birth which has now been verified by the respondents also. In fact,
by way of a supplementary counter affidavit, this fact has been brought
to the notice of this Court by the respondents. In view of it, there
remains less to adjudicate and it becomes almost an admitted case.
6. In view thereof, writ petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated
07.09.2018 (Annexure No. 13) is quashed. Respondents are directed to
record 15.07.1965 as the date of birth of the petitioner in all his official
records.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
26.02.2021
AR/
