Ramsharan vs Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Public Works Department & Ors

Lok Pal Singh, J.

Present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 passed by 2nd Addl. District Judge Roorkee in civil

appeal no.36 of 2014 as well as the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Roorkee, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-

appellant for declaration and mandatory injunction has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division),

Roorkee stating therein that he was appointed as Beldar in P.W.D., Roorkee, on 2.02.1986. He is class V pass. His date of birth is 1.01.1966, which is

recorded as such in the school records but in the service records, his date of birth has wrongly been mentioned as 01.01.1955. Appellant made several

representations before the authority concerned for ventilation of his grievances, but to no avail, whereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by

filing WPSS No.668 of 2010. In the said writ petition, this Court directed the authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner within eight

weeks and liberty was given to the petitioner to approach civil court in case representation is rejected. Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner

was rejected vide order dated 30.09.2011.

On the basis of pleadings of parties, trial court framed the following issues:

i) Whether the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1996? If yes, its effect?

ii) Whether the court fees paid is insufficient?

iii) What relief, if any, plaintiff is entitled for?

Thereafter, the parties led their oral and documentary evidence. The trial court, after hearing the parties and perusal of evidence, dismissed the suit

of the plaintiff. Before doing so, trial court recorded finding that although the name of plaintiff is mentioned at serial no.82 but it is worth-mentioning

that Serial No.82 has been written twice and the details of other students in the admission register has been written with the same ink/pen and

handwriting, except that of the plaintiff, whose details are written with different ink and handwriting. Trial court further observed that all entries have

been written with fountain pen whereas entry in respect of plaintiff is with ball pen, which is in use in recent years. Feeling aggrieved, the

appellant/plaintiff went in appeal, which also met the same fate.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

A perusal of admission register would reveal that Serial No.82 has been written twice and there are two entries at Serial No.82. Details of students

are written with fountain pen whereas details of plaintiff are written with ballpoint pen only. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding

of fact that the name of the appellant/plaintiff has been recorded differently in the register. In the opinion of the Court also, ballpoint pen, which has

been used to make entry with respect to the petitioner in the admission register, was not in use in the year 1967. Findings of fact have been recorded

by the courts below after proper appraisal of evidence on record. Though substantial questions of law have been framed in the memorandum of

appeal, but none of it goes to the root of the case. In view of this Court, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court.

Consequently, appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

Lower court record be sent back.

During trial, original admission register was kept on record. It is an important document and it should remain with the concerned Institution. Hence,

trial court shall send a letter to the Institution concerned in this regard to take back the register and shall handover the same, if anyone comes forward,

after keeping copy of it on record.