- (1.) THE case called out. Sri S.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant is present.
(2.) NONE is present on behalf of the appel -lant and the respondent No.1.
(3.) AS this appeal was filed way back in the year 2003 and obviously pretty old, we consider it appropriate to decide it on merit. The issue in dispute pertains to the date of birth of the two sons of the respon -dent/complainant Sri Kailash Nath, who were admitted in Durga Model Higher Sec -ondary School, Anand Nagar, Rawatpur, Kanpur Nagar. According to the respondent his son Sri Umesh Kumar was born on 10.5.1988 while his date of birth in the trans -fer certificate issued by the aforesaid school is mentioned as 10.7.1985. Likewise, the date of birth of the complainant's other son Sri Chandresh Kumar was wrongly shown as 15.6.1987 instead of his correct date of birth 6.5.1989. Sri Kailash Nath filed his complaint praying for compensation of Rs.4,00,000 with the allegation that the wrong mentioning of dates resulted in the harassment of his two sons as they could not be admitted in the next class for which the transfer certificates were obtained. It was also alleged that although the complain -ant and his children belonged to the Nai caste (Barber) yet they were shown to be as Brahmin. It was for this mistake attributed to the Principal of the college that the complainant's two sons could not get admis -sion because of their backward caste not being indicated in the transfer certificates. While seeking admission in 9th class in July, 2000, mark -sheets of 5th class issued by Basic Shiksha Parishad, Janpadiya Primary School were relied upon and submitted to the authorities concerned. In the memoran -dum of appeal these mark -sheets have been termed to be as forged and fictitious. The Principal who has filed the present appeal has categorically submitted that the com -plainant did not submit the mark -sheets of class 8th standard having been passed by the two children. As a matter of fact, a student seeking admission in 9th class is expected to rely and submit 8th pass certificate so as to maintain continuity and genuineness of the record but the complainant cunningly concealed the said requisite documents and submitted 5th pass mark -sheets which in fact were not genuine. The respondent has not been able to submit before this Commission the 8th pass certificates of the two sons of the complainant, although this appeal has been pending for the last 7 years with clear cut recitals in the memorandum of appeal about the complainant's case lacking on that score. In the absence of the said mark -sheets it is difficult to accept the complainant's ver -sion of the dates of birth of his sons having been wrongly mentioned in the transfer cer -tificates issued by the appellant.;