SANDEEP SHARMA,J. -
(1.) Instant regular second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 6.1.2017, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in CA No. 31-S/13 of 2015, titled Laxmi Singh Verma v. HP Board of School Education Dharamshala, affirming the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 29.5.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Solan, in CS No. 480/1/14/111, whereby suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff (herein after referred to as "the plaintiff"), seeking therein declaration that date of birth of the plaintiff is 13.2.1964 and not 13.2.1963 as has been wrongly mentioned in the matriculation certificate.
(2.) For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit under Sections 34, 38 and 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Court No.2 Solan District Solan, H.P., for declaration, mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction, averring therein that the plaintiff was born on 13.2.1964 and such fact after his birth was got recorded by his parents in the records of local Gram Panchayat Deothi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. Plaintiff averred that his parents also got entered the date of birth of other children in the record of Panchayat including his elder brother, who was born on 15.6.1962. Plaintiff averred in the suit that on account of bonafide and inadvertent mistake, parents of the plaintiffs, who are rustic, simpleton and illiterate villagers, wrongly got his death of birth recorded as 13.2.1963 while admitting him in school, as a consequence of which, his date of birth, wrongly came to be recorded in the school records as 13.2.1963 instead of his actual date of birth i.e. 13.2.1964. Aforesaid mistake committed at the time of the admission in the school remained unnoticed till the time plaintiff in December, 2009 visited his village to attend a meeting convened in Panchayat, as a consequence of which, date of birth of the petitioner came to be recorded as 13.2.1963 in class 8th as well as matriculation examination certificates. Plaintiff averred in the suit that in December, 2009, he got an occasion to see original records of Panchayat while he had gone there to attend some meeting. Plaintiff immediately after having noticed factum with regard to wrong recording of his date of birth in the school records made a representation dated 29.4.2010 (Ext.PW1/B), to the Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education (defendant No.1), praying therein to correct his date of birth from 13.2.1963 to 13.2.1964 in the middle as well as matriculation Certificates. However, aforesaid representation of the plaintiff came to be rejected vide communication dated 31.5.2010 sent under the signatures of Assistant Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education (Ext.PW1/D) on the ground that as per rules of the Board, there is no provision to make correction of date of birth in certificate of 8th standard, rather such correction is only made in the 10th certificate. Aforesaid authority vide aforesaid communication also apprised the plaintiff that since he has requested for correction of his date of birth on the basis of record of Panchayat, his prayer for correction cannot be acceded to in terms of rules occupying the field, rather for this purpose, he is required to approach the appropriate court of law in terms of Examination Regularizations Chapter-14, Rule 14.7.1. Immediately, after having received aforesaid communication from the defendant-Board, plaintiff filed suit at hand in the competent court of law making therein averments as well as relief as have been taken note herein above.
(3.) Defendants by way of written statement refuted claim of the petitioner on the ground of limitation, non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. On merits, defendants claimed that date of birth of the plaintiff was recorded as 13.2.1963 in his service book on the basis of matriculation examination certificate, which was made available by him at the time of his selection. Besides above, defendant claimed before the court below that prayer for correction of date of birth cannot be accepted at this belated stage in terms of provisions contained in Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, which specifically provides that prayer, if any, for correction of date of birth in service records is to be made within a period of two years from the date of his entry in the government service. Lastly, defendants claimed that defendant-Board records the particulars in the certificate on the basis of admission forms as filled up by the candidates and countersigned by the school authorities and as such, they are also required to be impleaded as a party respondent. With the aforesaid submissions, defendants sought dismissal of the suit.;