Civil Suit No. 102 of 2014 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. NO.484 OF 2017 In the matter of an Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailed the judgment and decree dated 5th December, 2017 and 20th December, 2017 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Bargarh in RFA No.10 of 17 confirming the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bargarh in Civil Suit No.102 of 2014. ---- Suresh Kumar Dash ::: Appellant. -versus- State of Odisha & Others ::: Respondents. Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (virtual/physical mode) ============================================ For Appellant :::: Mr. Deepak Kumar Pani, Advocate. For Respondents :::: Mr. S.N. Das, ASC. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE D.DASH DATE OF HEARING: 22.11.2023 :: DATE OF JUDGMENT::04.12.2023 D.Dash, J. The Appellant by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bargarh in RFA No.10 of 2017.
Legal Reasoning
The Appellant as the Plaintiff had filed the suit i.e. Civil suit No.102 of 2014 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bargarh. The suit was for declaration as to his date of birth and Page 1 of 9 RSA NO.484 OF 2017 // 2 // correction of the same in the High School Certificate and the service records. The suit having been dismissed, the Appellant as the unsuccessful Plaintiff had carried the Appeal under section-96 of the Code which has also been dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of the Appellant who has remained as the unsuccessful Plaintiff in both the Courts below. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit. 3. Plaintiffs case is that his real date of birth is 14.07.1959 and not 30.12.1957 which has been erroneously mentioned in educational certificate and service records. The Plaintiff was admitted in Upper Primary Sevashram School, Urduana in Class-I and there his date of birth had been correctly mentioned as 14.07.1959 in the admission register of the said school. Thereafter having gone to Bhadigaon Primary School where he prosecuted his studies in Class-II, the same date of birth was carried and after passing Class-V examination from Bhadigaon Upper Primary School, the Plaintiff was admitted in Class-VI at Murumkel High School (Government High School, Murumkel) having passed Class-VII from the said School, transfer Certificate was obtained for RSA NO.484 OF 2017 Page 2 of 9 // 3 // his admission in Panchayat High School, Bhikampali in Class-IX. It was then noticed that in the Transfer Certificate of Murumkel High School, the date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 30.12.1957 instead of 14.07.1959. So, the father of the Plaintiff sworn an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate and filed the same along with the Transfer Certificate of Murumkel High School before the Authority, Panchayat High School, Bhikampali. That was however not accepted. It is stated that the Plaintiff and his elder sister had taken admission in Bhadigaon Primary school on 22.06.1965. While issuing Transfer Certificate to the Plaintiff, the Headmaster of that U.P. School wrongly entered the date of birth of his elder sister in place of date of birth of the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the Plaintiff made correspondence with the School Authority and had drawn attention of the District Education Officer, Bargarh. That did not yield any result. The Plaintiff then appeared in the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha being a student from Panchayat High School, Bhikampali and in the said certificate which was issued in his favour after passing of the examination, the date of birth again found mentioned as 30.12.1957, which is not correct. The Plaintiff working as Clerk in Urduna Cooperative Society since the year 1980, his Service Book was RSA NO.484 OF 2017 Page 3 of 9 // 4 // opened in the year 20.02.2013. There also his date of birth was entered as 30.12.1957 which is incorrect. For the wrong recording of the date of birth of the Plaintiff although attention was drawn to the concerned Authority but none took appropriate action for correction of the date of birth. So, the Plaintiff was compelled to file the suit. 4. The Defendant No. 2, the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha through its Secretary in the written statement submitted that the date of birth had been correctly indicated as mentioned in the High School record; wherefrom the Plaintiff appeared in the final Board Examination. It is also stated that the correction of date of birth of a candidate is entertained in accordance with the Regulation-39 of Chapter-10 of the Boards Regulation. But for that purpose, the application has to be made within three years of passing of the Examination. Basing on the application of the Plaintiff, the date of birth having already been entered as 30.12.1957, the clam that his correct the date of birth should be 14.07.1959 is not entertainable. The Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 resisted the claim of the Plaintiff in similar light in further stating that such highly belated move of the Plaintiff is only with an oblique motive to get the benefits in his service that too at the fag end of the service career. RSA NO.484 OF 2017 Page 4 of 9 // 5 // 5. The Trial Court on the above rival pleadings framed as many as six (6) issues. On going through the evidence and upon their evaluation has come to conclusion that the case/claim of the Plaintiff for correction of his date of birth as 14.07.1959 instead of 30.12.1957 which already finds place in the service record and HSE Certificate is untenable. The First Appellate Court has concurred with the said view on re-appreciation of evidence at its level. 6. The Appeal has been admitted to answer the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the concurrent finding of the Courts below that the Plaintiff has no case for establishment of his claim that his real date of birth is 14.07.1959 but not 30.12.1957, suffers from the vice of perversity?” 7.
Legal Reasoning
Learned Counsel for the Appellant (Plaintiff) submitted that the Plaintiff having proved the original letter of Urduna U.P. School, Ext.3, information received from Urduna Sevashram, Ext.4, the information received from Bhadigaon U.P. School, Ext.5, the Courts below have erred in ignoring those documents by not taking those into account in their proper perspective and those if would be so considered, the finding returned by the Courts below would be have to the contrary. He, therefore, submitted that the finding of the Courts RSA NO.484 OF 2017 Page 5 of 9 // 6 // below on the core issue as to the real date of birth of the Plaintiff suffers from the vice of perversity. 8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the suit is wholly barred by limitation. The Plaintiff as per his own saying, when was aware of the wrong entry of his date of birth in the HSE Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education Odisha, Ext.1 having not filed the suit within a period of three years, his move before this Court in a writ petition in the year 2014 cannot extend/ enlarge the running of the period of limitation in giving rise to a fresh cause of action. He further submitted that both the Courts below having discussed the evidence on record in great details have rightly arrived at a conclusion that the Plaintiff had failed to establish his case/ claim for correction of date of birth that too at the fag end of his service career. According to him, the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Ext.1 has the final say over all other entries made in the School records and when as per the Plaintiff’s case, the High School from which he appeared as the candidate in the HSE Examination in its record indicated his date of birth as what has been placed in the HSE Certificate, that has to stand He thus, submitted that the findings do not at all suffer from any such infirmity much less to perversity. RSA NO.484 OF 2017 Page 6 of 9 // 7 // 9. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgments passed by the Courts below. I have also gone through the plaint and written statement and have perused the evidence, both oral and documentary. 10. As per the plaintiff’s case, he appeared in the High School Certificate Examination being a student from Panchayat High School, Bhikampali. He took his transfer to that school from Murumkel High School, when the Transfer Certificate was issued by the Headmaster of Murumkel High School. The Plaintiff’s date of birth was mentioned as 30.12.1957 and accordingly, that was also mentioned in the record of the Panchayat High School, Bhikampali. The Plaintiff from that Panchayat High School, Bhikampali appeared in the HSC Examination and in the certificate, Ext.1, the date of birth finds mention as 30.12.1957. It is stated that the Plaintiff that his father on 24.07.1972 had sworn an affidavit for correction of the date of birth of the Plaintiff. But thereafter, the Plaintiff not his father has not taken any further step in moving any Court of law nor even moving the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha in terms of their regulation for correction of the date of birth. That apart the Plaintiff joined in service and the Service Book was opened on 20.12.2013, wherein the same date of birth i.e. 30.12.1957 was entered. RSA NO.484 OF 2017 Page 7 of 9 // 8 // The suit was filed in the year, 2014, when the Plaintiff by then as per his own saying had already completed the service of long 23 years. It has been repeatedly cautioned by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as our own High Court that such claim as to the correction of date of birth towards the end of the service career if a person is not entertainable; pointing out that such direction for correction of the date of birth of a public servant concerned has a chain reaction in as much as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in the process; some are likely to suffer irreparable injury in as much as because of continues of the date of birth of an Officer concerned, he continuous in the office and in some cases for years within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion may loss the promotion for ever. Therefore, when such a claim is made as to correction of date of birth after long lapse of time and here it is also found to be long after the expiring of the period of limitation, the Courts below in my considered view did commit no mistake in refusing to ignore the date of birth as indicated in the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha and the record of the concerned High School wherefrom the Plaintiff appeared as a candidate in the Board Examination and also the High School where he was prosecuting his RSA NO.484 OF 2017 Page 8 of 9 // 9 // study just before that. The Courts below ignoring said documents, Exts.2 to 4, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, For all the aforesaid, the substantial question of law stands answered against the Plaintiff in affirming the concurrent finding of the Courts below holding that the same does not suffer from any infirmity much less to say are the outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence. 11.
Decision
In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. (D.Dash), Judge. Narayan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Dec-2023 15:08:35 RSA NO.484 OF 2017 Page 9 of 9