ORDER
1. Heard the parties. After death of the her husband, P.K. Narayan in harness, the respondent No. 1 herein was given compassionate appointment in the year 1977, by the Management of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi. During his service period, her husband on 1.2.1969, in a declaration had given the age of his wife, namely, the respondent No. 1 to be approximately 24 years.
2. Although it appears that the respondent No. 1 was already a graduated at the time of her compassionate appointment, but she failed to produce any document in proof of here date of birth and, therefore, on her oral declaration, in Coloumn-8 of the Personal Data Form (Annexure 4), her age was mentioned as 32 years. The said form was duly signed by her. Subsequently, it appear that on 1.12.1979 she got issued a school leaving certificate from J.K. High School, Begusarai, wherein her date of birth was mentioned as 15.9.1948, whereas according to her age mentioned in Personal Date Form, her date of birth comes to the year 1945. It further appears that on 6.8.1990, the said school leaving certificate as well as the matriculation certificate were produced by her before the A.P.O. (EST/ MOE, HQrs.) of the Corporation, who made endorsement thereon and placed those documents on record.
3. Further on the basis of those papers, the Deputy Manager (Education) of the Corporation made correction in her date of birth and thereby it was changed from 4.5.1945 to 15.9.1948 and, consequently, such correction was made in her Service Book too. Later on, the Senior Manager, P & A H Qrs of the Corporation issued communication dated 19.11.2000 to the effect that the Deputy Manager (E), had no authority to accept her date of birth as 15.9.1948, on the basis of the aforesaid school leaving certificate, some time in the year 1991, without taking approval of the competent authority and, therefore, direction was given to the Medical Division of the Corporation to recall the correction made by the Deputy Manager (Education) and to recorrect her date of birth as 18.7.1945.
4. Aggrieved by the said direction, the respondent No. 1 filed W.P. (S) No. 5821 of 2001 in this Court for quashing the said order and for a direction to accept her date of birth as 15.9.1948.
5. By the impugned order dated 10.4.2003 the learned Single Judge, set aside the communication dated 19.11.2000 and remitted the matter to the Management of the Corporation to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ-petitioner. The Management of the Corporation has preferred the present appeal against the said order/ direction of the learned Single Judge.
6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Single Judge while remitting the matter to the authority concerned observed that if the school leaving certificate was shown in original then the respondent even at that time had the opportunity not to proceed on the basis of said school leaving certificate, by the issuance of Annexure 3 and 3/1, it is evident that they acted all along on the basis of the date of birth as recorded in the school leaving certificate and not on the basis of pre-employment Medical Examination Report.
7. Mr. A Allam, counsel for the respondent No. 1 placed reliance on a decision in Radhe Shyam Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2001 (1) PLJR 451 and submitted that action of the respondents, in acting on the basis of pre-employment Medical Examination Report, which was contrary to the date of birth recorded in the school leaving certificate, was not proper. The A.P.O. H.Qrs. had already verified the original school leaving certificate, and thereafter the authorities cannot, at this stage, be allowed to fall back on the declaration that the respondent No. 1 might have made at the time of initial appointment. Further the pre-employment Medical Examination Report can also be taken as proof of age of the employee concerned.
8. In our opinion, in respect of the proof of date of birth, the date recorded in a matriculation certificate and in a school leaving certificate cannot be treated at a par, In respect of the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate, unless there is a doubt of genuineness of the certificate itself, no other proof is required and it is conclusive proof to establish the date of birth. On the other hand a school leaving certificate, unless proved in accordance with law, its authenticity cannot be accepted without proof.
9. Unfortunately, in the matriculation certificate produced by the respondent No. 1, her date of birth was not mentioned. As per the prevalent practice at the relevant time, in the case of female candidates, her date of birth was not mentioned in the matriculation certificate. Hence the respondent No. 1 was not in a position to establish her date of birth on the basis of the said matriculation certificate. Faced with such situation, she obtained the school leaving certificate in proof of her date of birth, which could have only been accepted, if the authorities were satisfied about its genuineness as well as proper proof in accordance with law. The respondent No. 1, in our opinion, was at liberty to move the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievances in accordance with law, elsewhere. Such dispute cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. In such a situation, remittance of the matter to the authorities of the Corporation would not serve the purpose of the respondent No. 1. The corporation, did not accept her date of birth in the year 1948 and her age (32 years in the year 1977) mentioned in the Personal Data Form was directed to be continued.
11. We are, therefore, of the view that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to get any relief from this Court under the writ jurisdiction and on being aggrieved by the direction of the Corporation dated 19.10.2000, she was required to go before an appropriate forum elsewhere for redressal of her grievance.
12. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the aforesaid direction dated 19.10.2000 and set aside the impugned order dated 10.4.2003, passed by the learned Single Judge.
In the result this appeal in allowed.