MOHINDER PARTAP PURI Vs. REGISTRAR, PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for correction of the date of birth to the Panjab University-respondent on the basis of an abstract of entries from the birth register maintained by the Registrar, Births & Deaths, Registration Unit, Municipal Committee, Ambala City, and equally a rectification in the matriculation certificate. The petitioner was communicated vide order Annexure P-8 that his request had been declined by the Registrar, Panjab University. The petitioner approached this Court contending, inter alia, that no speaking order had been passed by the Committee appointed for the purpose by the Panjab University and the approval of the Syndicate, if any, was also of no value in the absence of the order of the Committee being a speaking one. In response to notice of motion issued by us, Mr. Thapar appearing for the University first sought more time to file a return but on our declination has produced before us the original file. We have seen the order of the Committee. We reluctantly have to hold it a non-speaking one even though one of the members participating was an Ex-Judge of this Court. The rectification has been denied solely on the ground that the petitioner had applied eighteen years after his passing the matriculation examination held in 1967 and has not given satisfactory reason for applying so late. We are of the view that delay in such matters assumes importance when the evidence produced for the purpose is viewable as suspicious or shady. Here the petitioner produced an abstract of the entries from the birth register maintained by the Registrar, Births & Deaths. Such abstract was a certified copy of the public record which normally is presumed to be correct having been maintained in the normal course of the discharge of duties of a public functionary. Unless and until the Committee found that such abstract was not genuine or there were otherwise suspicious circumstances about the same, the delay as such could not dominate to oust the consideration of the claim of the petitioner on merits. Any further comment in that regard is not called for by us it would perhaps cast reflection on the merits of the case since we are sending the case back to the Committee for reconsideration.

(2.) For the aforesaid, we allow this petition set aside the order of the Committee and the sequel, approval if any, by the Syndicate and remit the case back to the Committee for consideration of the case of the petitioner. Let the decision be made as quickly as possible so that if there is rectification in favour of the petitioner, he may avail of it in his service avenue to his advantage. No costs.

(3.) I agree.