LexEASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS versus BAJRANGI RABIDAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 895 EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS v. BAJRANGI RABIDAS (Civil Appeal No. 8634 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Service Law: A B Date of birth - Determination of - Date of birth of c employee recorded as 2. 4. 1946 at the time of initial employment - Later employee seeking rectification of his date of birth as 2.4. 1948 on the basis of his Matriculation Certificate - Permissibility - Held: The date of birth mentioned in Matriculation Certificate has to be accepted as authentic - 0 But in the present case, the employee in order to gain eligibility for appointment did not produce Matriculation Certificate at the time of initial appointment - Hence, h·e· is estopped from relying on the Matriculation. Certificate - Estoppel. E Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Jurisdiction under - Nature and Scope of - Held>Jhe jurisdiction of High Court u/Art. 226 is equitable and discretionary - Such jurisdiction cannot be exercised, if there is error of law - If a person has taken undue advantage, the Court in its extra-ordinary F jurisdiction would be within its domain to deny discretionary relief The respondent joined the services of a private colliery as a Mining Sirdar after qualifying three exams. G He mentioned his date of birth as 2.4.1946. His date of birth was reflected in Form 'B' Register and service book and he signed both the documents. The Colliery was taken over by Central Government pursuant to Coal 895 H 896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R. A Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 and the same was absorbed by the appellant-Company. 'Implementation Instruction No.76' was issued in the year 1987 laying down procedure for determination 8 verification of age of employees, as disputes with regard to date of birth of employees. The respondent filed objection that the entry of his date of birth was erroneous as his actual date of birth was 2.4.1948 as per his Matriculation Certificate. Pursuant C to direction of High Court at the instance of the respondent, the authority concerned of the appellant conducted enquiry and eventually rejected the claims of the respondent. 0 Respondent filed writ petition against the order. Single Judge of High Court dismissed the petition. Division Bench of High Court allowed the writ appeal of the respondent and directed for rectification of the records and grant of admissible arrears of salary and E other consequential service benefits. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The Division Bench of H[gh Court has F taken note of certain facts which are not .correct. The respondent had clearly stated in the inquiry that he had joined the service on 9.1.1970 as Mining Sirdar and had appeared in the Gas Testing Examination held on 15.5.1969, Sirdarship Examination on 2.7.1969 and G Overmanship Certificate Examination on 3.7.1973. He had obtained all the three statutory certificates where his date of birth was recorded as 2.4.1946. [Para 8] [903-C-E] 2. The Division Bench of the High Court referred to Regulation 15(2) of the Regulations to express the view jH that the respondent could not have been admitted as a EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS v. 897 BAJRANGI RABIDAS candidate to the said Examination in the year 1969 A without submitting the passed certificate of the secondary school examination of a recognized Board or its equivalent. The said assumption by the Division Bench is incorrect as it has not at all taken note of the facts that have come out in the enquiry conducted by the B General Manager. The enquiry report clearly reveals that the respondent could not produce the Madhyamik certificate at the time of his appointment as he had not received the same at that time and the said certificate was received by him sometime in the year 1970. He had C categorically stated that he never produced the certificate of Madhyamik examination before the Management but verbally told the fact of his passing of the said examination to the then Welfare Officer. It was also told that he had not mentioned passing of the examination at the time of submission of application to appear before the D statutory examination. This being the factual position, the finding of the Division Bench that he had produced the Madhyamik School certificate at the time of appearance in examination is not correct. [Para 8] [903-E-H; 904-A-B] 3. F
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.