Mukeshpal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

D.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

In pursuance of an advertisement dated 5.9.2006 inviting application for recruitment to the post of Constable in Civil Police, the petitioner had applied and was selected by the Selection Board in district Bereilly whereafter vide order dated 5.12.2006 he was appointed at Pilibhit. Nevertheless, by an order dated 11.9.2007, the entire selection was cancelled. However, in the case of the petitioner, a separate order was passed on 13.9.2007 holding that the petitioner has incorrectly mentioned his date of birth in the High School Certificate and therefore his selection was doubly cancelled also on this ground.

It is not denied by the parties that the order dated 11.9.2007 whereby the entire selection was cancelled has been quashed by this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and that judgment has been upheld in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Pawan Kumar Singh 2009 (3) ADJ 366 by the Division Bench in Special Appeal. It is also not denied that in the pending Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court, no interim order has been passed and all the selectees/recruites have been directed to be reappointed.

4.However, since the selection of the petitioner has also been cancelled by the impugned order dated 13.9.2007, the counsel for the petitioner is pressing this petition.

It is urged that the date of birth mentioned in the High School is final and the respondents could not go behind it by relying upon some transfer certificates of Class VIII.

It is not denied by the learned standing counsel that the petitioner had disclosed his date of birth as 16.7.1987 which was in consonance with the High School Certificate which he had passed in the IInd Division, but his selection has been cancelled on the ground that in the transfer certificate of Class VIII his date of birth is mentioned as 7.5.1983.

The question is which is the authentic certificate for purposes of service which has to be relied upon. The Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution has framed Date of Birth Determination Niyamawali, 1974 which shows that the date of birth mentioned in the High School Certificate would be final. The Apex Court in the case of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and Others Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, has also held that the date of birth mentioned in the High School Certificate is the correct date of birth. In an identical matter, a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Writ Petition No. 12954 of 2007, Jiledar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors., decided on 2.4.2008 has also held that the date of birth mentioned either in the school register or in the transfer certificate of any class would be immaterial and the authorities have to look to the date of birth mentioned in the High School Certificate. Thus, the entire approach of the respondent in passing of the order dated 13.9.2007 is vitiated.

Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.9.2007 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits.

In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.