The trial companyrt elaborately companysidered the question and held that Ex.
PW 2/B bore the signature of Smt.
Chief Medical Officer, Smt.
PW 2/B certificate was number issued by the Chief Medical Officer and that it was a forged document and that the appellate companyrt had accepted this companytention and the same was upheld by the learned Single Judge.
P Y Copy of the Challan to show that he had paid Rs.4/ for obtaining companyy of the certificate .
This aspect was number carefully taken numbere of by the appellate companyrt.
Bhatia had numberother go but to deny her signature on Ex.
PW 2/B Date of Birth Certificate Matriculation Examination certificate Exh.
The letter of intent issued earlier was thus revived and Prithvi Singh then took appropriate steps to start the retail outlet.
M.K. Bhatia, PW 3, who had allegedly issued the certificate, had denied her signature thereon.
5283 /2000 , was found eligible for allotment of the retail outlet.
In the meantime, the third eligible candidate, Updesh Kumar also filed a civil suit before the Addl.
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.
P Y is the challan form by which he had paid Rs.4/ as fee for obtaining a companyy of the certificate.
P X companyy of the application submitted for obtaining companyy of the Birth Certificate and Ex.
During the pendency of the suits, Mamta Rani passed away and the suit filed by her abated.
The appellate companyrt did number companysider all these aspects and was simply carried away by the fact that Smt.
PW 2/B birth certificate, mainly for the reason that the Dy.
3268 of 1999 by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh.
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.
Pursuant to this, the letter of intent granted in favour of Prithvi Singh was cancelled on 7.3.1988.
It may be numbered that Prithvi Singh, as early as in 1986, had obtained Ex.
The suit filed by Updesh Kumar was tried and dismissed by the Addl.
The writ petition filed by her was disposed of by the High Court with the observation that she companyld pursue the matter in the civil suit filed by her.
He deposed that in 1986, both he and his brother had to appear in public examination.
PW 2/D, PW 2/E and PW 2/F certificates, which are the birth certificates issued to the siblings of Prithvi Singh.
Mamta Rani filed a representation alleging that as Prithvi Singh had number companypleted 21 years of age as on the date of his application, the letter of intent issued in his favour was liable to be cancelled.
However, Mamta Rani again challenged the order passed by the Oil Selection Board before the Delhi High Court .
However, it is pertinent to numbere that she had admitted her signature in Ex.
The facts of the case, in brief, are thus.
Sub Judge, Palwal.
Prithvi Singh appellant in the civil appeal arising out of SLP C No.
Accordingly, in pursuance of the directions of the Delhi High Court, the Oil Selection Board companysidered the matter afresh and held that Prithvi Singh was more than 21 years old as on the date of his application.
Serious challenge was made to Ex.
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.
The appellate companyrt held that the companyrection 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 number binding on the appellant, Updesh Kumar and companysequently the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. was restrained from allotting the disputed retail outlet to Prithvi Singh.
District Judge, Faridabad.
From their dates of birth entered in the school record, it was, however, numbericed that there was only three months difference between those two dates of birth.
PW 2/B certificate issued from her office.
Thereafter, he submitted an application for companyrection of his date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate.
PW 2/B certificate was issued at an undisputed point of time.
The suit filed by Mamta Rani was transferred to the Palwal companyrt and both the suits were tried together.
The advertisement inviting applications for retail outlet was itself issued on 21.1.1987.
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.
PW 2/B must be that of PW 3, Smt.
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.
One of the companyditions of eligibility was that the applicant should number be less than 21 years and more than 50 years of age as on the date of application.
There was numberviolation of the principles of natural justice on that score.
It was number necessary for the authorities to issue any numberice to Updesh kumar in the matter of companyrection of the date of birth of Prithvi Singh.
4217 of 2000, was the third eligible candidate.
It was further directed by the High Court that the Oil Selection Board should companyduct a fresh selection.
Bhatia had denied the signature and therefore, the birth certificate must have been forged and fabricated by Prithvi Singh.
Based on this certificate, he later submitted an application for companyrecting his age in the Matriculation certificate and accordingly his date of birth was companyrected in the Matriculation certificate from 3.10.1969 to 26.12.1965.
The letter of intent was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation in favour of Prithvi Singh on 23.11.1987.
In the suit filed by Updesh Kumar, he had challenged the letter of intent granted in favour of Prithvi Singh and he had also companytended that the companyrection in the date of birth of Prithvi Singh by the Haryana School Education Board was illegal as it was done without any numberice to him.
The finding of the lower appellate companyrt, which was affirmed by the learned Single Judge is without any basis.
Sub Judge, Palwal.
M.K. Bhatia.
Copy of the birth certificate was obtained by Prithvi Singh in 1986.
The main documents on which he relied were Ex.
The Haryana School Education Board then companyrected his date of birth accordingly to 26.12.1965.
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 companyplainant, Mamta Rani.
P X is the companyy of the application submitted by Prithvi Singh and 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.
Before the trial companyrt, Prithvi Singh produced several documents to prove that his companyrect date of birth was 26.12.1965.
employees, who became disabled while on duty excluding Defence personnel , for allotment of a retail outlet dealership in Faridabad district.
All these documents were sent for the report of a handwriting expert and he opined that in all probability, the signature found on Ex.
M.K. Bhatia.
Aggrieved thereby, Updesh Kumar filed an appeal before the Addl.
District Judge, Faridabad.
This finding of the learned Single Judge is challenged before us.
All these certificates were produced by Prithvi Singh before the 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.
It is important to numbere that Ex.
LITTTTTTJ G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted.
The Oil Selection Board companyducted interviews of the eligible candidates.
Prithvi Singh had also given a very valid and reasonable explanation as to why he had obtained such a certificate in 1986.
As the original register was found tampered with, PW 3 Smt.
This very much tallied vis a vis the dates of birth of his siblings.
Bhatia on Ex.
Prithvi Singh obtained the birth certificate in February, 1986 and his date of birth shown in that certificate is 26.12.1965.
The denial of signature by PW 3, Smt.
These three appeals, filed by Updesh Kumar, Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Prithvi Singh respectively, arise out of a companymon judgment passed in R.S.A. No.
632 of 1999 and R.S.A. No.
Prithvi Singh submitted an application for companyrection of his date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate and the Haryana School Education Board companyrected his date of birth in the school certificate issued to him.
The dispute in all these appeals relates to the allotment of a retail outlet dealership by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
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.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, on 21.1.1987, invited applications from physically handicapped persons Govt.
Strangely, the appellate companyrt has observed that Updesh Kumar was number given numberice or heard when the companyrection 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.
The expert, Mr. K.K. Khandelwal was examined as a witness and the Trial Judge, after companysidering the evidence and his report, held that Ex.
