P. M. Asok Kumar v State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** # **MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/10TH MAGHA 1933** ## **WPC.No. 22988 of 2011 (W) ---------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S): -------------------** **P.M.ASOK KUMAR,ELUTHARA HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O., CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 027.** **BY ADVS.SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **---------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.** **2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),** - **OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 016.** **3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 016.** **4. THE KORAMPADAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.178, KOTHAD P.O., VIA CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 027, REPRESENTED BY THE, SECRETARY.** **5. MICHEAL.A.F, ARAKKAL HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O., CHITTOOR ERNAKULAM-682 027.** **6. THE HEAD MISTRESS, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL OF JESUS, KOTHAD, P.O.KOTHAD, ERNAKULAM-682 027.** **R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVINDRAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.PAUL VARGHESE R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.MONAYE R6 BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN MANNALY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON 30-01-2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **svs** ## **W.P.(C). NO. 22988/2011** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT IN THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 18.6.2008.** - **P2: COPY OF IST PAGE OF THE S.S.L.C.BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.** - **P3: COPY OF S.S.L.C MARK SHEET OF THE PETITIONER.** - **P4: COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER.** - **P5: COPY OF LETTER DATED 26/6/2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **P6: COPY OF LETTER DATED 18/12/2009 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.** - **P7: COPY OF LETTER NO. 90/2010 DATED 23/3/2010 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **P8: COPY OF LETTER DATED 26/3/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVUR.** - **P9: COPY OF LETTER DATED 26/3/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA.** - **P10: COPY OF LETTER NO.E/806/2010 DATED 7/8/201** - **P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/12/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.** - **P12: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/1/2011 RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER, KERALA.** - **P13: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8/6/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.** - **P14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8/6/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATION.** - **P15: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C.R.P(1) 1993/11 DATED 9/6/2011 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **Svs** **...........2/-....** **...2...** ## **WPC. NO.22988/2011** - **P16: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17/6/2011.** - **P17: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1/8/2011 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **P18: COPY OF THE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FOR ISSUING CERTIFICATES FOR THE PERIOD 2007 TO 2009 FURNISHED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **P19: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17/6/2011 FILED BEFORE THE INFORMATION OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.** - **P20: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13/7/2011 RECEIVED FROM THE INFORMATION OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFIC,ERNAKULAM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **R4(a):COPY OF THE ATTESTED COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF ADMISSION REGISTER PRODUCED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **svs** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.22988 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30[th] day of January 2012 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner was an applicant to the post of Attender cum driver in the 4[th] respondent Bank. Ext.P1 is an advertisement in news paper inviting applications from qualified persons. The petitioner complains that though he was qualified for the said post, the 4[th] respondent appointed the 5[th] respondent to the said post under political influence and further alleging that the 5[th] respondent was not qualified for the said post especially regarding the qualification of his age. In terms of the advertisement, the candidates should not be above the age of 37 years as on 01/04/2008; whereas according to the petitioner, the 5[th] respondent was aged 44 years as on 01/04/2008. The petitioner relied upon the particulars of driving licence issued to the 5[th] respondent by the R.T.A, Ernakulam which showed that the date of birth of the 5[th] respondent is 19/1/1964. It is contended that in Ext.P7 certificate issued by the Headmistress of the Higher Secondary School of Jesus, Kothad, the date of birth is shown as 19/1/1969. It is contended that the petitioner W.P.C.No.22988/11 2 has obtained a certificate from the School showing the date of birth as 19/1/1969 by fraudulent means and therefore the petitioner seeks for a declaration that the appointment of the 5[th] respondent in the 4[th] respondent bank is illegal and void, for a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to rescind the resolution appointing the 5[th] respondent and among other reliefs for a direction to appoint the petitioner in the said post. It is also alleged that the petitioner had given complaints before the police and the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, but no enquiry is conducted into the said allegations. 2. The 4[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the 5[th] respondent belongs to other backward community namely Latin Christian and as per Rule 183(1) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, he was eligible for relaxation of the upper age limit by three years. Since the 5[th] respondent has produced the extract of school admission register along with his application to prove his age showing the date of birth as 19/1/1969, it is evident that he had not crossed 40 years as on 01/04/2008 and therefore he was eligible to be considered for selection. The 5[th] respondent became first rank holder and the W.P.C.No.22988/11 3 petitioner the second rank holder. The respondent also produced a copy of the extract of school admission register which was produced by the 5[th] respondent along with his application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner however contends that there is enough material to show that the date of birth as shown in the certificate from the school is obtained by fraudulent means which is evident from Ext.P6. Ext.P6 would show that licence No.7/416/1985 was issued to Sri.A.F.Michael and his date of birth is 19/1/1964. The learned counsel also relies upon Exts.P17 and P18 which are answers to the queries of the petitioner by the school authorities under the Right to Information Act. It is indicated that admission No.3919 as reflected in Ext.P17 relates to Michael.A.J and that the admission was given on 14/5/1973. Ext.P18 is referred to show the details of applications received for issuing certificates for the period 2007-2009, furnished by the 6[th] respondent and it is contended that the 5[th] respondent has not submitted any such application for getting a certificate from the 6[th] respondent. The learned counsel therefore argues that the very obtaining of the extract of W.P.C.No.22988/11 4 the school admission register is doubtful and since the same does not tally with the driving licence, it can be presumed that the 5[th] respondent had produced fraudulent documents for applying for the said post. The learned counsel also submits that if we go by Ext.P7 certificate, a person was admitted to school when he had completed only 4 years and 3 months which is against the provisions of law. The learned counsel also submits that Ext.P10 has been issued without proper enquiry and in that view of the matter, the petitioner seeks the reliefs prayed for. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent contends that for all practical purposes regarding date of birth, school admission register is the relevant document and since after verification of the documents, the appointing authority is satisfied with the said documents the said decision cannot be interfered with. It is further contended that the petitioner cannot seek a direction for rectifying the date of birth of a person from what is seen in the school admission register without a proper adjudication in accordance with law and after notice to the parties concerned. W.P.C.No.22988/11 5 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in **Madan Mohan Singh and Others v. Rajni Kant and Another [2010(9) SCC 209]** to contend for the position that when an entry is made in an official record by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duty, it may have weight but still may require corroboration by the person on whose information the entry has been made and as to whether the entry so made has been exhibited and proved and such entries may be in any public document that is school register, voters list or family register. This judgment is relied upon to indicate that even the driving licence obtained by the petitioner is a document which would show an entry in a public document and therefore there is reasonable doubt in regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. 6. It can be seen that the petitioner had filed complaints before competent authorities and it is alleged that though the Joint Registrar had conducted an enquiry as evident from Ext.P15 and despite the fact that the petitioner had produced all documents, no orders have been passed so far and that the respondents are trying to delay the proceedings before the 2[nd] W.P.C.No.22988/11 6 respondent by all means. 7. From the facts as described above and on a consideration of the factual circumstances and the arguments raised, it is evident that this is a case which involves a serious allegation of production of a fraudulent extract of school admission register. This, however, is a matter of evidence and it is primarily for the appointing authority to consider whether the school admission register produced is in any way forged. If the appointing authority considers it fit, definitely an enquiry can be conducted in the matter and appropriate orders passed. As matters stand now, no proper enquiry has been conducted and even according to the petitioner though notice was received as Ext.P15 and the petitioner submitted all necessary particulars, nothing has been done by the said authority. Hence it is necessary that the 2[nd] respondent Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies should consider the allegations raised by the petitioner regarding the eligibility of the appointed candidate as early as possible. Hence the writ petition is allowed as follows: i) The 2[nd] respondent shall conduct necessary enquiry W.P.C.No.22988/11 7 into the allegations raised by the petitioner in pursuance of Ext.P15 notice after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, respondents 4, 5 and all affected parties and submit a report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ii) Copy of the said report shall be furnished to all the parties concerned and it shall be open for any of the parties to challenge the said report in accordance with law. ## **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr W.P.C.No.22988/11 8 W.P.C.No.22988/11 9 ## **THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J.** Crl.M.C.No. of 200 ORDER 19/01/2011