Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAI SINGH versus DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS ETAH AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vijai Singh v. District Inspector Of Schools Etah And Others - WRIT - A No. 21502 of 1997 [2007] RD-AH 6482 (9 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 26

                      Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21502 of 1997

        Vijai Singh                      versus       District Inspector of Schools

                                                                  Etah and others

                                                  connect with:

                  Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11195 of 1991

          Vijai Singh                      versus       District Inspector of Schools

                                                                    Etah and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

List has been revised.

Heard counsel for the petitioner. Sri Daya Shankar, counsel for the respondents is not present.

The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.6.97 passed by respondent no.3, Principal, Rashtriya Uchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jinehara, Mirachi, District Etah. It has further been prayed that the respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Mali till the year 2003 and to pay him salary w.e.f. December 1996 and arrears w.e.f. October, 1977 to 1999.

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Mali on 7.7.1997 in a clear vacancy in the aforesaid Vidyalaya and retired on 18.6.97 from service.

The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, which states that according to the own statement of the petitioner he is 52 years of age and by appearance he appears to be 53 years of age.

The certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Etah dated 30.12.96 is as under:-

^^ izs"kd]

      eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh

      ,Vk A

lsok esa]

       iz/kkukpk;Z

       jk"Vh; mPPk ek/;fed fon;ky;

       ftUgSjk fejgoh ,VkA      fnukad& 30-12-96

egksn;]

       vkids Ik=kad 25@fnukad 21-12-96 ds laanHkZ esa lwfpr djuk gS fd Jh@Jherh fot; flag iq=@iq=h Jh rksrk jke fuoklh  ftUgSjk Fkkuk fejgoh tuin ,Vk vkt fnukad 30-12-96 dks esjs le{k  vk;q izek.k Ik=  gsrq mifLFkr gq;s@gq;h eSaus buds LokLF; dh tkWp dhA blds dFkukuqlkj budh vk;q 52 o"kZ gS rFkk ns[kus esa mudh vk;q yxHkx 53 o"kZ izrhr gksrh gS A

                               Hkonh;

                              g0 vLIk"V

                       Ekq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh

                                             ,Vk A^^

  The allegation of the petitioner is that he has been prematurely retired from service as he had not attained the age of 60 years on 18.6.1997 according to the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Etah by whom he was medically examined on the direction of respondent no.3, as such the age certificate issued by the Competent Authority can not be ignored by the respondents.

            Any disputed question of fact regarding determination of age of the petitioner involved in a present writ petition should be got adjudicated by the alternate forum as it is not proper for High Court to decide questions of facts in writ jurisdiction by taking oral and documentary evidence.

The High Court cannot determine the factual question regarding the date of birth merely on the basis of statement or certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer. The question of age can only be decided on the basis of irrcorrigible documents such as High School Certificate or the document such as medical test i.e. Ossification test of bones.  From perusal of the above certificate it appears that the Chief Medical Officer has not issued the certificate regarding the age of the petitioner after conducting the scientific test of ossification test of bones.

In the circumstances, petition no. 21502 of 1997 is disposed of finally with a direction that the petitioner shall present himself before the District Inspector of Schools, Etah within one month from today who will refer the matter to the Chief Medical Officer, Etah for conducting the Ossification test of bones for determination of approximate age of the petitioner within two weeks of receipt of the reference. The Chief Medical Officer will get the age of the petitioner determined on the basis of ossification test of bones within one week thereafter.  The District Inspector of Schools will pass appropriate orders in respect of the grievance of the petitioner keeping in view the result of the medical test of ossification of bones conducted by the Chief Medical Officer thereafter.

 In so far as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11195of 1991 is concerned, the only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner at this stage is that a direction may be issued to the petitioner to move a representation regarding his grievance and the authority concerned may also be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a time bound frame fixed by this Court.

 In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, writ petition no.11195 of 1991 is also disposed of finally with a direction that in case the petitioner files a representation raising his grievance for payment of salary before the authority concerned within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, the same shall be decided by the authority concerned by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter.

Dated: 9.4.2007

CPP/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.