DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION Vs. K SITADEVI
LAWS(SC)-1990-11-36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on November 08,1990

DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION Appellant
VERSUS
K.SITADEVI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

CANARA BANK VS. P UMESH PAI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
DAHIBEN C PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2004-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI DEVI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAMEN SARMAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
IQBABUL HAQUE VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
BIPUL CHANDRA DEY ALIAS BIPUL BIHARIDEY VS. TRIPURA JUTE MILLS [LAWS(GAU)-2005-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
JAGGU VS. COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-180] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SANEHI PANDEY VS. U P RAJYA VIDYUT PARISHAD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-136] [REFERRED TO]
M VIJAYA BHASKARA REDDY VS. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-12-43] [REFERRED TO]
M RADHAKRISHNAN VS. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DINDIGUL [LAWS(MAD)-1996-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA YADAV VS. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2002-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
RADHAKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1999-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
M. NATARAJAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2013-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF J&K VS. MOHD AKBAR MIR [LAWS(J&K)-2003-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2004-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
K M JARIWALA VS. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1993-2-15] [RELIED ON]
RAM KISHORE VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION DIVISION U P POWER CORPORATION [LAWS(ALL)-2003-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU LAL VS. DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER DIRECTOR OF BASIC EDUCATION STATE OF U P AND [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAIN KAPOOR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-103] [REFERRED TO]
A P TRANSMISSION CORPORATION VS. Y NAGAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2002-8-104] [REFERRED TO]
K V KALIAPPAN VS. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-2000-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
K SIVA REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2013-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
ISHAQUE UDDIN MAZUMDAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1994-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, JAIPUR VS. GULAB CHAND JAIN SON OF LATE SHRI MOTI LAL JAIN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-7-129] [REFERRED TO]
DURVASALA SARASWATI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2006-12-85] [REFERRED TO]
T THIRUCHULI VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-374] [REFERRED]
SUNDARAMURTHY VS. CHIEF SECRETARY; ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-428] [REFERRED]
OM PARKASH SON OF RAM NARAIN VS. PUNJAB MANDI BOARD AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-2-525] [REFERRED]
SUSHIL KUMAR KHANNA VS. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-89] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT SAXENA S/O M.C. SAXENA VS. ADDL. REGISTRAR LAW COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-365] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)- Appellant's challenge by special leave is to the correctness of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by which the respondent's application for alteration of her date of birth from 19-10-1929 to 21-8-1933 has been accepted.
(2.)Respondent, a lady engineer in the service of the State of Andhra Pradesh, entered into service in 1955. Admittedly she is an engineering graduate. The matriculation certificate which she had then produced while entering into service indicated her date of birth to be 19-10-1929. It appears that she filed Original Suit No. 309 of 1979 in the Civil Court for alteration of her date of birth from 19-10-1929 to 21-8-1933 impleading the Andhra University as defendant and obtained the decree on 21-10-1980. Pursuant to the decree of the Civil Court, the Andhra University issued a fresh matriculation certificate to her in which her date of birth was shown as 21-8-1933. On the basis of this new certificate respondent applied to the appropriate authority in the State for changing her date of birth from 19-10-1929 to 21-8-1933 in the service record. Such application was, however, rejected on 23-6-1983. Thereafter, the respresentation was filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the same having been allowed the appeal has been brought to this Court.
(3.)It is not in dispute that in the suit the State of Andhra Pradesh was not impleaded and the only defendant was the Andhra University which had granted the certificate. The claim of the respondent for the alteration of date of birth was based upon a municipal certificate regarding date of birth. Though, the suit was contested, the State of Andhra Pradesh not being a defendant, the decree was not accepted by the State. The matter would have been certainly very different if the decree was obtained in the presence of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Mr. Madhava Reddy is, therefore, justified in his submissions that the decree and the municipal certificate on which reliance was placed in the suit were only pieces of evidence having no binding effect on the dispute. His submission is that the Tribunal has erred by relying upon them as binding on the State.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.