LEELA WATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to have joined ihe service in the year 1955 in the State of Pepsu as Untrained Teacher. It was claimed at that time that she passed Matriculation in the year 1942. In the seniority-list of 1959, her date of birth was shown as 29.11.1917. In the seniority-list of 1965, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 29.11.1927. In the year 1987, the petitioner applied that her date of birth be corrected to 29.11.1929. The petitioner in her own hand, produced an application with a certificate indicating her date of birth to be 29.11.1929 but when the fact was verified from the University, it was found that one Smt. Leela Wati passed Matriculation in the year 1942 and here date of birth, as recorded in he University, is 29.11.1917. In view of the above facts, the Enquiry Officer and the punishing authority came to the conclusion, that since the petitioner was the beneficiary, it would be reasonable to conclude on the facts and circumstances stated above that the petitioner submitted wrong information relating to her date of birth by altering the same from 29.11.1917 to 29.11.1927 and thereby illegally draw salary from 1.12.1975 onwards. It is further alleged that the petitioner fraudulently produced a forged certificate with her application dated 10.9.1986. Resultantly the petitioner was dismissed from service.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the proceedings inter alia on the ground that it was not feasible to admit that the petitioner would have been permitted to join service at the age of 38 years in 1955 if her date of birth is taken to be 29.11.1917. On the other hand, if tie date of birth, as put forth by the counsel for the petitioner, i.e. 29.11.1929 is taken, she would have passed Matriculation at the age of about 12 years, prima facie it has to be assumed that she must have started her educational career at the age of 2 which does not appear to be reasonable in the ordinary course of events. Be that as it is, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that die date of birth of the petitioner is 29.11.1927.I have asked the counsel repeatedly if there is any document i.e. Matriculation certificate or any other document from which the petitioner can show her date of birth to be 29.11.1927, the counsel was unable to show any such document.

(3.) From the facts stated above and the very conduct of the petitioner herself producing a letter alongwith the Matriculation Certificate under roll number, proclaiming her date of birth to be 29.11.1929, while in fact, in the University record, the date of birth is recorded to be 29.11.1917, shows the conduct of the petitioner being not above board and truthful. The findings returned by the authority has not been shown to be perverse or unreasonable in any way. In such circumstances, where a person who has taken advantage of wrong date of birth being recorded from time to time in the seniority-list as well as service record in the ordinary course of events, is presumed to have tampered with the record, as nobody-else would be interested except the one who wants to derive the benefit out of it. There is no force in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner.