http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 722 of 2001

Special Leave Petition (civil) 4217 of 2000

Appeal (civil) 723 of 2001

Special Leave Petition (civil) 4767 of 2000

Appeal (civil) 724 of 2001

Special Leave Petition (civil) 5283 of 2000

PETITIONER:

UPDESH KUMAR, ETC. ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

PRITHVI SINGH & ORS., ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/01/2001

BENCH:

S.R.Babu, K.G.Balakrishna

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

Leave granted.

These three appeals, filed by Updesh Kumar, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited and Prithvi Singh respectively, arise

out of a common judgment passed in R.S.A. No. 632 of 1999

and R.S.A. No. 3268 of 1999 by the High Court of Punjab &

Haryana at Chandigarh. The dispute in all these appeals

relates to the allotment of a retail outlet dealership by

the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

The facts of the case, in brief, are thus. Indian Oil

Corporation Limited, on 21.1.1987, invited applications from

physically handicapped persons/Govt. employees, who became

disabled while on duty (excluding Defence personnel), for

allotment of a retail outlet dealership in Faridabad

district. One of the conditions of eligibility was that the

applicant should not be less than 21 years and more than 50

years of age as on the date of application. The Oil

Selection Board conducted interviews of the eligible

candidates. Prithvi Singh (appellant in the civil appeal

arising out of SLP(C) No. 5283 /2000), was found eligible

for allotment of the retail outlet. The second eligible

candidate was one Mamta Rani while Updesh Kumar, the

appellant in the civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil)

No. 4217 of 2000, was the third eligible candidate. The

letter of intent was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation in

favour of Prithvi Singh on 23.11.1987. Mamta Rani filed a

representation alleging that as Prithvi Singh had not

completed 21 years of age as on the date of his application,

the letter of intent issued in his favour was liable to be

cancelled. Pursuant to this, the letter of intent granted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

in favour of Prithvi Singh was cancelled on 7.3.1988.

Prithvi Singh, in turn, filed a writ petition before the

High Court of Delhi challenging the cancellation of the

letter of intent issued in his favour. The High Court set

aside the cancellation order and directed the Oil Selection

Board to re-consider the matter afresh after hearing Prithvi

Singh and the complainant, Mamta Rani. Accordingly, in

pursuance of the directions of the Delhi High Court, the Oil

Selection Board considered the matter afresh and held that

Prithvi Singh was more than 21 years old as on the date of

his application. The letter of intent issued earlier was

thus revived and Prithvi Singh then took appropriate steps

to start the retail outlet.

However, Mamta Rani again challenged the order passed

by the Oil Selection Board before the Delhi High Court .

She also filed a civil suit before the District & Sessions

Judge at Chandigarh challenging the findings of the Oil

Selection Board and prayed for injunction against allotment

of the retail outlet in question to Prithvi Singh. The writ

petition filed by her was disposed of by the High Court with

the observation that she could pursue the matter in the

civil suit filed by her. In the meantime, the third

eligible candidate, Updesh Kumar also filed a civil suit

before the Addl. Sr. Sub Judge, Palwal. The suit filed by

Mamta Rani was transferred to the Palwal court and both the

suits were tried together. During the pendency of the

suits, Mamta Rani passed away and the suit filed by her

abated. The suit filed by Updesh Kumar was tried and

dismissed by the Addl. Sr. Sub Judge, Palwal. Aggrieved

thereby, Updesh Kumar filed an appeal before the Addl.

District Judge, Faridabad. The appellate court held that

the correction of the date of birth of Prithvi Singh from

3.10.1969 to 26.12.1965 in his Matriculation Certficate was

illegal, null and void and was not binding on the appellant,

Updesh Kumar and consequently the Indian Oil Corporation

Ltd. was restrained from allotting the disputed retail

outlet to Prithvi Singh. This judgment was challenged by

Prithvi Singh before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, but

the High Court declined to interfere with the judgment of

the Addl. District Judge, Faridabad. It was further

directed by the High Court that the Oil Selection Board

should conduct a fresh selection. This finding of the

learned Single Judge is challenged before us.

We heard the learned counsel for the parties and also

Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Solicitor General for the

Indian Oil Corporation.

Prithvi Singh had submitted an application for

allotment of a retail outlet claiming that he had completed

21 years of age as on the date of application. According to

Prithvi Singh, his date of birth is 26.12.1965 and not

3.10.1969 as originally entered in his Matriculation

certificate.

It may be noted that Prithvi Singh, as early as in

1986, had obtained Ex. PW-2/B (Date of Birth Certificate)

from the Chief Medical Officer, Faridabad, wherein his date

of birth was recorded as 26.12.1965. Based on this

certificate, he later submitted an application for

correcting his age in the Matriculation certificate and

accordingly his date of birth was corrected in the

Matriculation certificate from 3.10.1969 to 26.12.1965. All

these certificates were produced by Prithvi Singh before the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

Oil Selection Board and after hearing both Prithvi Singh and

Mamta Rani, the Oil Selection Board held that Prithvi Singh

had attained 21 years of age as on the date of his

application for allotment of the retail outlet.

In the suit filed by Updesh Kumar, he had challenged

the letter of intent granted in favour of Prithvi Singh and

he had also contended that the correction in the date of

birth of Prithvi Singh by the Haryana School Education Board

was illegal as it was done without any notice to him.

Before the trial court, Prithvi Singh produced several

documents to prove that his correct date of birth was

26.12.1965. The main documents on which he relied were Ex.

PW-2/B (Date of Birth Certificate); Matriculation

Examination certificate; Exh. P-X (copy of the application

submitted for obtaining copy of the Birth Certificate); and

Ex. P-Y (Copy of the Challan to show that he had paid

Rs.4/- for obtaining copy of the certificate). The trial

court elaborately considered the question and held that Ex.

PW-2/B (Birth Certificate) was a genuine document issued by

the competent authority and that the correction of date of

birth in the Matriculation Examination certificate was

properly done and that the date of birth of Prithvi Singh

must, in all probability, be 26.12.1965 and held that the

decision of the Oil Selection Board in allotting the retail

outlet to Prithvi Singh was just and proper.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Updesh Kumar,

strenuously contended before us that Ex. PW-2/B certificate

was not issued by the Chief Medical Officer and that it was

a forged document and that the appellate court had accepted

this contention and the same was upheld by the learned

Single Judge.

It is important to note that Ex. PW-2/B certificate

was issued at an undisputed point of time. The

advertisement inviting applications for retail outlet was

itself issued on 21.1.1987. Copy of the birth certificate

was obtained by Prithvi Singh in 1986. Exh. P-X is the

copy of the application submitted by Prithvi Singh and Ex.

P-Y is the challan form by which he had paid Rs.4/- as fee

for obtaining a copy of the certificate. Prithvi Singh had

also given a very valid and reasonable explanation as to why

he had obtained such a certificate in 1986. He deposed that

in 1986, both he and his brother had to appear in public

examination. From their dates of birth entered in the

school record, it was, however, noticed that there was only

three months' difference between those two dates of birth.

Prithvi Singh was, therefore, asked to obtain a birth

certificate from the Chief Medical Officer in order to avoid

any risk of his application for the said examination being

rejected. Prithvi Singh thus applied for the certificate

and obtained the same on 17.2.1986 and as per that

certificate his date of birth was 26.12.1965. Thereafter,

he submitted an application for correction of his date of

birth in the Matriculation Certificate. The Haryana School

Education Board then corrected his date of birth accordingly

to 26.12.1965.

Serious challenge was made to Ex. PW-2/B birth

certificate, mainly for the reason that the Dy. Chief

Medical Officer, Smt. M.K. Bhatia, [PW-3], who had

allegedly issued the certificate, had denied her signature

thereon. However, it is pertinent to note that she had

admitted her signature in Ex. PW-2/D, PW-2/E and PW-2/F

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

certificates, which are the birth certificates issued to the

siblings of Prithvi Singh. All these documents were sent

for the report of a handwriting expert and he opined that in

all probability, the signature found on Ex. PW-2/B must be

that of PW-3, Smt. M.K. Bhatia. The expert, Mr. K.K.

Khandelwal was examined as a witness and the Trial Judge,

after considering the evidence and his report, held that Ex.

PW-2/B bore the signature of Smt. M.K. Bhatia. The

appellate court did not consider all these aspects and was

simply carried away by the fact that Smt. Bhatia had denied

the signature and therefore, the birth certificate must have

been forged and fabricated by Prithvi Singh. The finding of

the lower appellate court, which was affirmed by the learned

Single Judge is without any basis.

Prithvi Singh obtained the birth certificate in

February, 1986 and his date of birth shown in that

certificate is 26.12.1965. This very much tallied vis-a-vis

the dates of birth of his siblings. Prithvi Singh submitted

an application for correction of his date of birth in the

Matriculation Certificate and the Haryana School Education

Board corrected his date of birth in the school certificate

issued to him. The correction of date of birth in the

certificate is an official act and it must be presumed to

have been done in accordance with law. Updesh Kumar could

not produce any evidence to show that there was any

irregularity in the process of correcting the date of birth

of Prithvi Singh in the school record. Strangely, the

appellate court has observed that Updesh Kumar was not given

notice or heard when the correction in the date of birth of

Prithvi Singh was done in the school records and hence there

is violation of the principles of natural justice. It was

not necessary for the authorities to issue any notice to

Updesh kumar in the matter of correction of the date of

birth of Prithvi Singh. There was no violation of the

principles of natural justice on that score. The denial of

signature by PW-3, Smt. Bhatia on Ex. PW-2/B certificate

is also of not much consequence. She must have deposed so

because the original records kept in the office of the Chief

Medical Officer were found tampered with. The pages had

been found torn and replaced. It was noticed by the trial

Judge that the entries in the register for the year 1965-66

were in Urdu script while those on the relevant pages were

in Hindi. The corresponding leaf of the sheet containing

entries 74 to 85 in the register was found removed and

another paper was pasted. As the original register was

found tampered with, PW-3 Smt. Bhatia had no other go but

to deny her signature on Ex. PW- 2/B certificate issued

from her office. This aspect was not carefully taken note

of by the appellate court. It may also be noticed that in

the electoral roll published on 1.1.1986, the name of

Prithvi Singh had been entered as he had attained more than

21 years of age as on 1.1.1986. The Oil Selection Board

considered all these aspects and held that the date of birth

of Prithvi Singh must be 26.12.1965 and that as on the date

of application for allotment of the retail outlet he had

attained the age of more than 21 years.

There is overwhelming evidence to prove that Prithvi

Singh had attained the age of 21 years as on the date of his

application for allotment of the retail outlet and the

appellate court was not justified in reversing the decision

of the trial court. The learned Single Judge also did not

advert to these points while confirming the decision of the

appellate court. In the result, we set aside the judgment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

of the appellate court and that of the learned Single Judge

and hold that the suit filed by Updesh Kumar shall stand

dismissed. Consequently, the appeals filed by Prithvi Singh

and the Indian Oil Cororation Limited are allowed. The

appeal filed by Updesh Kumar shall stand dismissed and he

being a physically handicapped person, we make no order as

to costs. All the parties shall bear their respective

costs.