PURAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 10th October, 1972, writ petitioner was appointed as a Khalasi. While he was working as such Khalasi, on 5th March, 1980 he was medically examined. In order to be so medically examined, petitioner was required to give a statement and declaration. He, accordingly, gave the same under his signature. In that, he stated and declared that as on that date, he was 28 years old, having been born on 1st July, 1952 at Dehradun. In the year 1982, the post of a driver was available. Petitioner aspired to be appointed as driver. By a letter dated 14th May, 1982, petitioner was asked to appear for interview and test for being appointed as driver. Petitioner appeared for the interview and the test and was successful. A look at the letter dated 14th May, 1982 would make it amply clear that, in course of interview, petitioner was asked to produce his certificates pertaining to his educational qualification. The success in the test and the interview was communicated to the petitioner on 27th November, 1982 by a letter. In this letter, it was clearly indicated that the petitioner is being appointed because he is a Class -VIII pass candidate. The letter dated 27th November, 1982 made it clear that the offered appointment given thereby to the petitioner is subject to his resignation from the post of Khalasi being accepted. In the said letter dated 27th November, 1982, it was indicated that as per 8th Class pass certificate produced by the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner is 1st July, 1954. Since 27th November, 1982, petitioner was, accordingly, treated to have been born on 1st July, 1954. On 21st September, 1997, the service records of the petitioner were prepared, when it was shown that the petitioner was born on 1st July, 1954, and that, he is a Class -VIII pass candidate. The date of birth of the petitioner and his passing Class -VIII were recorded in the service book of the petitioner on the basis of the school leaving certificate produced by the petitioner in course of interview for the post of driver and as was reflected in the letter dated 27th November, 1982 offering the petitioner the post of driver. Some time after 21st September, 1997, an inquiry was made to ascertain the authenticity of the school leaving certificate, produced by the petitioner to suggest that he has passed Class -VIII. In course of inquiry, it transpired that the said school -leaving certificate is a fictitious certificate. The same having come to notice, on 19th November, 2005, the remark in the service record of the petitioner that he is a Class -VIII pass candidate was scored off and, at the same time, his year of birth '1954 was scored off and the same was replaced by '1952, as was mentioned by the petitioner in his statement and declaration as was given for his medical examination conducted on 5th March, 1980.

(2.) FROM the narration of the facts as above, it would be evidenced that since the date of appointment of the petitioner as driver until 19th November, 2005 in the records of the employer, the date of birth of the petitioner was reckoned as 1st July, 1954, accordingly, in the gradation list, seniority list and all other documents and papers, respondent employer proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was born on 1st July, 1954. Only on discovery of the fact that the school leaving certificate, on the strength whereof the date of birth of the petitioner was reckoned as 1st July, 1954, is not an acceptable document, respondent employer started treating the petitioner to have been born on 1st July, 1952. This alteration of the date of birth of the petitioner was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal, where the petitioner has lost and hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) FROM the narration of the facts as above, it appears to us that the petitioner played fraud on the respondent employer soon before applying for the post of driver. He falsely represented that he is a Class -VIII pass candidate, which was the minimum required qualification for being appointed as a driver. He also falsely claimed that he is below 30 years of age. These two false representations were made by production of a false school -leaving certificate. Respondent employer was made to believe that the said school -leaving certificate is genuine. Respondent employer believing the same, while appointed the petitioner as a driver, proceeded on the basis that he was born on 1st July, 1954. Later on, it transpired that the said school -leaving certificate is a false certificate. Petitioner is seeking to contend that he is an illiterate and he had never gone to any school and the certificate was also not produced by him. This contention on the part of the petitioner is too far fetched, inasmuch as, the text of the school leaving certificate, upon which the petitioner relied had been clearly mentioned in the offer for appointment to the post of driver made as far back as on 27th November, 1982. We, accordingly, find no scope of interference. Since the respondent employer has not taken any action against the petitioner for the deception highlighted above, we have also refrained ourselves from giving any direction in relation thereto.