Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus SHRI RAMANATH PATNAIK

Decided
2 April 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 528 · 1997 INSC 355
Also cited as
  • AIR 1997 SC 2452 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court, made on February 21, 1986 in Second Appeal No. 767/81, dismissing the second appeal in li111i11e.

p. 528, margin F

Admittedly, the respondent joined the State service as a Clerk on 21.3.1944. According to the Matriculation Certificate produced at the time of the entry into the service, 'his date of birth is January 1, 1921. On attaining the superannuation, he retired from service on 31.12.1976. He filed a suit in the year 1981. on the basis of the rejection of his representation for declaration that his correct date of birth is January l, 1925 and not January l, 1921. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the Additional District Judge, Bhubaneshwar decreed the suit. As stated earlier, the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

pp. 528–529, margin G

The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court has considered the entire case law on this point in State of Tamil Nadu v. T. V. Venugo}Jllftm._ ! 1994] 6 SCC 302. Therein, this Court, has held thus :

p. 529, margin B

''It is well known thafthe service record would be opened after the government servant enters the service record would be countersigned by the government servant. The date of birth as entered in the school record is the source of material for making entry in the

p. 529, margin C

service record."

p. 529, margin C

When entry was made in the service record and when he was in service, he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected. Therefore, any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail. The High Court, therefore, has committed manifest error of law in refusing to entertain the second appeal.

p. 529, margin D

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The judgment and decree of the appellate Court stands reversed and that of the trial Court stands confirmed. No Costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 529, margin E