Departmental verification confirming authenticity of educational documents precludes judicial interference with appointment orders.

The applicant, an OBC candidate, applied for the post of Barber at the Military Hospital, Gwalior

Respondent No. 6 (Anil Srivas) was selected and appointed to the post

The applicant challenged this appointment, alleging that Respondent No. 6 secured the position using a forged birth certificate, purportedly changing his date of birth from 06.01.1987 to 05.06.1993 to meet eligibility criteria

In a previous round of litigation (O.A. No. 202/00174/2014), the Tribunal directed the respondents to verify the authenticity of Respondent No. 6’s documents

Consequently, Respondent No. 6’s services were temporarily terminated on 22.07.2017 pending a departmental enquiry

A Board of Officers and the Board of Education verified the 10th-grade marksheet and found it to be genuine

Based on these findings, the respondents issued a speaking order on 31.08.2017 reinstating Respondent No. 6

The applicant filed the current O.A. seeking to set aside the appointment and requesting reconsideration of his own candidacy

1. Whether the appointment of Respondent No. 6 was obtained through the submission of forged age-related documents

2. Whether there is any legal ground to interfere with the respondents' decision to reinstate Respondent No. 6 following a departmental verification process

The court applied the principle that the Class 10th certificate (High School marksheet) serves as the primary and authoritative proof of age for recruitment purposes

the administrative law principle that findings of a duly constituted Departmental Enquiry/Board of Officers regarding the veracity of documents are binding unless proven perverse or procedurally flawed

The court also noted that entries in electoral rolls, often based on oral testimony from uneducated family members, do not override official educational certificates in determining legal age

The Tribunal examined the records of the departmental enquiry conducted pursuant to its earlier order dated 10.07.2017

It observed that the Selection Board and the subsequent Board of Officers specifically scrutinized the 10th-grade marksheet of Respondent No. 6, which recorded his date of birth as 05.06.1993

This date placed him within the prescribed upper age limit for the recruitment

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had followed due process by temporarily terminating Respondent No. 6 and conducting a thorough verification with the relevant Board of Education

Since the verification process confirmed the document's genuineness, the court found no illegality in the speaking order dated 31.08.2017 that reinstated the respondent

The applicant’s reliance on discrepancies in the father's statements or electoral rolls was dismissed, as the official educational record was validated by the competent authorities

The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents

Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of

No order as to costs was made