In Shiv Nath Sharma vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Gupta and Sheel Nagu passed a 3-page long order dated July 23, 2026, wherein, it upheld the judgements by Patna High Court. The civil appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated April 7, 2016 of the High Court which arose out of an order dated May 18, 2015 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the appellant’s writ petition. The Supreme Court concluded;"5. We are at a loss to comprehend as to how the appellant could qualify the Class XII examination in 1970, before he qualified in the matriculation examination of 1971. 6. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was absolutely justified in not entertaining the writ petition as well as the intra- court appeal. 7. We also record that this is a matter, where no leave ought to have been granted in the first place. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstance noted above, the civil appeal is dismissed. 9. Time to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only in terms of the impugned order dated 07th April, 2016 is extended by a month from date."
In Shiv Nath Sharma vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt.
of Bihar & Ors. (2016), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Ahsanuddin Amanullah delivered a 3-page long judgement dated April 7, 2016, wherein, it had concluded:"The appellant has referred to the certificate of Madhyama wherein 5.6.1955 has been shown as his date of birth. The appellant has played smart giving two dates of birth – one in the Madhyama ertificate which is more suitable date in case of employment and another in the records of the Matriculation examination. It is a clear case of fraud, which has been rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge under the order impugned herein. Even after the finding of the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant was vehemently persistent in pursuing the present appeal to say that the order under challenge in the writ application was issued without giving an opportunity of hearing. On admitted facts, we do not find that any opportunity of hearing decision. The principal of natural justice does not follow any straight-jacket formula. When the facts are apparent, opportunity of hearing may not be required. Keeping in view the admitted fact that the Matriculation certificate of the appellant bears the date of birth as 5.6.1952, the result would be that the appellant would superannuate on the date from which, he has been made to retire.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) to be paid by the appellant to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority within one month from today." The judgement was authored by Justice Gupta upon hearing the order under challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal was passed by the Single Judge of the High Court on May 18, 2015, whereby the writ application filed by the petitioner challenging the order of retirement on the basis of date of birth of the appellant as June 5, 1952.
The grievance of the appellant was that the appellant was made to retire by an ex parte order without giving an opportunity of hearing, therefore the order of retirement is not sustainable.
In Shiv Nath Sharma vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar (2015), Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi dismissed the writ petition by his 2-page long judgement dated May 18, 20215. Justice Tripathi had concluded:"In the opinion of the Court, not only the impugned order is not required to be interfered with but the Sanskrit Shiksha Board or the State will be well advised to file a complaint case against the petitioner itself for his conduct and fraud on the face of record. Let the petitioner prove his innocence before the forum after institution of such a case." The other six respondents were: 2. The Special Director, Secondary Education, (Sanskrit), Education Department, Government of Bihar, 3. Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board through its Secretary, Patna, 4. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, 5. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, 6. The District Education Officer, Patna and 7. The District Programme Officer, Patna.
The judgement recorded that if the petitioner did not deny that he had sat for matriculation examination in the year 1971 and had declared his date of birth to be June 5, 1952 then merely because he went ahead and acquired some more certificates and degrees like Madhayama, Uttar Madhayama etc., the date of birth cannot change. The educational qualification can be acquired through various norms and institutions but man cannot be born again and again before every examination. The order dated December 15, 2014, by virtue of which petitioner had been asked to superannuate treating his date of birth to be June 5, 1952. The petitioner had filed the writ application that it is his 1955 date of birth as available in Uttar Madhyama certificate, which should be treated to be the correct date of birth.
Justice Tripathi had observed: "Since the petitioner has not denied existence of two different dates of birth and two different certificates relating to him, this is a clear case of fraud played by the petitioner in seeking appointment under the respondents."
No comments:
Post a Comment