POOJA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MIRZAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. B. S. Chauhan, J. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 5-7-2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, District Mirzapur where by the earlier resident certificates granted in favour of Smt. Pooja, the petitioner and one Smt. Smrita Devi have been cancelled.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be a resident of village Khamhariya Suryavansh, Post Halia, Tehsil Lalganj, District Mirzapur and pursuance to the advertisement issued on 26-10-2005 for selection of Shiksha Mitra, she alongwith Smrita Devi and. Smt. Vandana Mishra submitted applications and a merit list was prepared in which the quality point marks awarded to the petitioner were highest and she was selected for the said post. For the purposes of selection, the petitioner had submitted a domicile certificate showing her as a resident of village Khamhariya Suryavansh, Post Halia, Tehsil Lalganj, District Mirzapur. A complaint was however made by one Smt. Vandana Mishra, who was also an applicant for selection of Shiksha Mitra that the domicile certificate issued to the petitioner was not correct. An enquiry was conducted and thereafter the domicile certificate Issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the order dated 5-7-2006, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY, such a document is admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act being a public document prepared by the Government official in exercise of his official duty. However, the question does arise as what is the authenticity of the said entry for the reason that admissibility of a document is one thing and probity of it is different. In State of Bihar & Ors. v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh & Ors. , AIR 1983 SC 684, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a similar contention and held as under : "admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value quite another -these two aspects cannot be combined. A document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and weight of its probative value may be nil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Where a report is given by a responsible officer, which is based on evidence of witnesses and documents and has a statutory flavour in that it is given not merely by an administrative officer but under the authority of a Statute, its probative value would indeed be very high so as to be entitled to great weight. . . . . . . . . . . The probative value of documents which, however ancient they may be, do not disclose sources of their information or have not achieved sufficient notoriety is precious little. "