Rule 5 of the Rules contemplate that no person shall be appointed in the service by direct recruitment who was less than 21 years or more than 35 years of age on or before the last date of submission of application to the commission. The third representation of the applicant was also rejected by the Government of India by letter reference No. Aggrieved by the rejection of the representation by communication dated 7th September, , the applicant filed a petition before Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench being O.
Janardhana Rao v. P and anr.
Rama Swamy , 4 SCC Pursuant to order dated 13th March, the Government of India passed the order dated 27th May, relying on Rule 16A of the AIS DCRB Rules, holding that change of date of birth in the service records of an IAS Officer is not be allowed unless there is a bonafide clerical mistake in accepting the date of birth as per sub Rule 2 or 3 of the said rule. The communication dated 27th May, also relied on the uniform policy of the Central Government that the date of birth once entered by the concerned officer in the service record is not to be changed on any ground at all except if there was some clerical mistake while entering the date of birth.
Any subsequent change in the source of information regarding date of birth does not make it incumbent for the Government of India to make consequential changes in the service records. The judgments in reference to which the representation was to be reconsidered were considered and were found to be distinguishable.
The Government of India noticed that in case of C. Surjit Kaur Sandhu v. Union of India holding that matriculation certificate is not the sole criterion under All India Service Rules to determine the date of birth. It was also held that the selection committee constituted under Regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service Appointment by Promotion Regulation, held on 30th March, , had prepared a list of candidates including the applicant where the date of birth of the applicant was recorded as 6th May, whereas the applicant made representation to the State Government for change of his date of birth on 22nd May, , two months after the meeting of the selection committee held on 30th March, The UPSC had also approved the recommendations of Selection Committee on 14th May, prior to the representation of the applicant and the applicant had not represented either to the State Government before the meeting of the Selection Committee or before the approval of the recommendation of the Selection Committee by UPSC on 14th May, despite being in the State Civil Service since 1st July, In the circumstances, the Government of India held that the representation of the applicant for change of his date of birth could not be said to be pending with the Government on the date relevant for acceptance of date of birth and could not be allowed.
The case of S. Janardhana Rao supra was also found to be distinguishable as in that case the date of birth of the candidate had been changed by the State Government prior to the meeting of the selection Committee for inclusion of the name of the candidate in the select list. However, instead of correct date of birth, incorrect date of birth was communicated whereas in the case of applicant no representation was even pending on the date of the selection Committee meeting.
In the case of S.
- 1000 Most Common Sentences in English.
- Valeries Family (The Nightengale Legacy Of Sin And Betrayal Book 5).
- How To Be The Most Engaging Person In The Room... Every Time?
Janardhana Rao before the proposal was sent for promotion to IAS, the State Government had corrected the service book of that candidate and consequently it had been held that on the ratio of S. Thus on reconsideration of the representation of applicant pursuant to order dated 13th March, of the Tribunal, the change of date of birth was again declined by order dated 27th May, Pursuant to rejection of change of date of birth of the applicant by order dated 27th May, , an order dated 30th May, was issued retiring the applicant from the service.
The applicant filed an original application being O. The Tribunal has allowed the Original application of the applicant holding that the case of the applicant is a rarest of rare case, as he has produced irrefutable and unimpeachable evidence showing that his date of birth recorded in the official record is incorrect.
Despite all other authorities accepting his stand based on the evidence produced by the applicant, even the State of Haryana recommending by a detailed communication supporting the case of the applicant, the Government of India has declined to change the date of birth on the rigor of Rule 16A of the All India Service Death Cum Retirement Benefits Rules, It was held that the case of the applicant is not such where an employee comes on some imaginary stories like coming to know of their correct date of birth from their old or grown up relations or from their family purohits.
But the applicant has been able to bring on record and to the satisfaction of all concerned, be it the Punjab University or the State Government, irrefutable evidence of his actual date of birth being 6th May, The Tribunal also held that the parents of the applicant got married in November, and his elder sister was born on 21st July, , therefore, the date of birth of 6th May, as recorded in the original matriculation certificate of the applicant, could not be correct as he could not have been born before his parents were married and before his elder sister was born.
Thus the applicant brought on record all the conceivable certificates up to the middle standard which too he had passed from the State Education Board which are more than 30 years old and hence has the presumption of truth under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. The Tribunal further held that the birth and death certificates as also middle school examination certificate were in the custody of such authorities which, in the nature of their duties, carry out such purpose. Hence it was concluded that the said certificates were given by the proper authorities and would meet the requirement under section 90 of the Evidence Act.
The Tribunal by impugned order, however, held that the correct procedure as envisaged under Rule 16A of the Rules of not accepting the date of birth was adopted and no bonafide clerical mistake had been committed in accepting the date of birth of the applicant as 6th May, The plea of the applicant that the order of the Government of India dated 27th May, was in contrast to the judicial precedent of Supreme Court in S.
Janardhana Rao Supra was repelled. The plea of the applicant that while deciding his earlier O. It was held that in the reply filed on behalf of Government of India there was no plea with regard to the applicant acting late in the matter of correction of his date of birth. According to the Tribunal in the case of the applicant, it is not that he had hit upon an idea to get a change in his date of birth close to his retirement, instead as soon as he came to know about the discrepancy in his date of birth record in his matriculation certificate, he moved the Punjab University for correction of his date of birth in the matriculation certificate and the decision was taken in the syndicate meeting held on 20th January, Applicant even prior to that day had made a representation on 22nd May, to the Chief Secretary Haryana.
The Tribunal also noted that had the plea of delay been determined at any stage, the applicant would have explained that he was not aware of the difference in rules applicable when he came to be appointed and the rules on the basis of which it was said that the applicant had taken advantage of his wrong date of birth in securing the Government employment as the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies. It has also been held that applicant is not in the kind of service that he would have naturally known in the course of his duties the rule position and, therefore, the third representation made after 10 years of the second representation was held to be justified and, therefore, rejection of change of date of birth on the ground of delay was not acceded to.
Tribunal after returning the finding that the actual date of birth of the applicant is 6th May, and not 6th May, relying on the alleged irrefutable and or impeachable evidence produced by the applicant further held that it is a rarest of rare case. Since the applicant had not taken advantage of his wrong date of birth for securing the Government employment, therefore, rejection of his representation in and was incorrect as his representations were rejected on the wrong premise that he had taken advantage of his wrong date of birth and that he was ineligible in for the appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies on the basis of his date of birth of 6th May, Since the evidence produced by the applicant has been held to be irrefutable, the Tribunal considered whether the rigor of Rule 16A of Rules of can be relaxed or not.
In view of Rule 3 of the All India Services Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters Rules, the Tribunal has deemed it to be a case which requires consideration by the Government of India and, therefore, has directed the Government of India to consider the applicability of Rule 3 on the ground that the case of the applicant appears to be a rarest of rare case where the employee has proved to the hilt that his date of birth is incorrect and allowed his original application to this limited extent.
The order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the Government of India inter alia on the following grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the tribunal has gravely erred in its finding that the present matter of the applicant is a rarest of rare case and hence the petitioners are required to reconsider the plea of the applicant under Rule 3 of the All India Services Condition of Service- Residuary Matters Rules The learned counsel for the Union of India Mr.
Dubey has contended that even the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the correct procedure as envisaged under RuleA of the Rules of was adopted and while doing so, no bonafide clerical mistake had been committed in accepting the date of birth. According to the learned counsel the power under Rule-3 is an enabling power of the Central Govt. According to him, Union of India has raised in Ground G of the petition, the challenge to the change of date of birth of the respondent. Representations after a lapse of 17 long years in the service in the government by the applicant for a change of his date of birth from 6th May, to 6th May, on the ground that his parents got married in and his elder sister was born on 21st July, and that in , on the death of the mother-in-law of his elder sister, he came to know about these facts and therefore, his correct date of birth on the basis of the documents collected by him is 6th May, and not changing his date of birth will cause undue hardship, is without any factual and legal basis.
In view of the ex facie evident facts that the applicant is an officer qualified as MA, LL. That the date of birth of the applicant being 6. Thereafter on his selection in the Haryana State Civil Service Executive at the administrative level for nearly 17 years from his joining the civil services in State of Haryana and approximately 45 years from his date of birth, the respondent did not complain or make any representation with regard to the alleged incorrect date of birth i. After the rejection of his first two representations in and , the third application was only made in the year when the respondent was due to retire on 31st May , at the fag end of his service.
The first representation to the State Government was in the circumstances after considerable period after entering the State service, rather at the fag end of State Service. It was contended that under the rules of the State Government, the applicant would not have been entitled for change of his date of birth after 17 years of entering the service. Hence it was contended that the applicant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where such mistake is not bonafide.
This also undoubtedly implies the reasonable care to be taken on the part of the party alleging undue hardship. In the facts and circumstances it is evident that the undue hardship caused is due to the negligence or mistake on the part of the applicant himself for which the government cannot be held responsible. The bare reading of Rule 16 makes it clear that the said Rule is made to limit the scope of correction of date of birth and service record and the intent of the rule is to exclude all other circumstances for the said purpose.
The benefit to alleviate the undue hardship of relaxation of any rule or rules must be of a nature already provided for in the rules. Government is not empowered by this rule to confer benefits which are not contemplated in the rules. Therefore the impugned order of the tribunal is apparently erroneous, illegal and contrary to the mandate of law and the intent and purposes of All India Services Condition of Service- Residuary matters Rules as well as All India Services Death cum retirement Benefit Rules The impugned order of the tribunal is contrary to the public interest and virtually makes the statutory provisions i.
Regarding the non applicability of Rule 3 of the residuary rules the learned counsel Mr. State of U. The learned counsel for the Union of India has also relied on Sup. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Per contra the learned counsel for the applicant contended that two fold reliefs have been claimed by the applicant, which are setting aside the impugned orders dated It is contended that it is not the Selection Committee but the Central Government who accepts the date of birth.
Thus the natural inference would be that the occasion for accepting the date of birth would arise only after 8th July and not before that. In support of this submission the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on Rule 16 A of the All India Services Death-Cum - Retirement Benefits Rules which clearly stipulates in clause 1 :. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on the comments given by the State Government to his third representation made in the year dated nil which is annexed with the letter date 28th June by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, addressed to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry, which has been heavily relied on by the Tribunal as well.
The State government had duly traced the history of the case referring to the earlier representations made by the applicant and had given detailed reasons for its finding that the applicant had submitted irrefutable proof of his actual date of birth as being 6. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that even though The State Government had found the representation meritorious with the conclusion that the evidence produced by the applicant for the correction of his date of birth was irrefutable, and had even made the recommendation to the Government of India for correction of his date of Birth in the official records, however by order dated 9th August , the State government could not do the needful, as the service records were not in its possession and were instead sent to the Government of India.
According to Mr. Rohtagi, Sr. According to him the middle school certificate and the marks sheet issued by the concerned authorities, the date of birth has been shown as 6th May, Government of A. Rama Swamy , 4 SCC , the date of birth of the applicant as 6th May, was not challenged nor in any of the application the factum of the said date of birth has been denied.
The expression 'undue hardship' has to be construed in normal circumstances and a natural meaning has to be given to the said expression. Since the factum of date of birth is not denied, the three factors, retirement before the age of superannuation, deprivation of salary, allowances and qualifying service before which the applicant would be retired and the effect on his pension as the last drawn salary is the determinant effect which would be lifelong, and would therefore constitute 'undue hardship'. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail and has also perused the record which was before the Tribunal and the precedents relied on by the parties.
Before analyzing the facts of the case, the precedents relied on by the parties are considered. Supra , the Supreme Court had held while dealing with Rule 65 of Orissa General finance rule that correction in a date of birth cannot be entertained at stage of superannuation and date of birth admitted in service role shall be final. It was also held that while dealing with the representation for alteration in change of date of birth, there was no requirement of any law to give any personal hearing to any such employee before dismissing his representation. In Harnam Singh Supra , the Apex Court was of the opinion that those employees who were already in service prior to were obliged to seek alteration within the maximum period of 5 years from the date of coming into force of amended note in In this case, alteration was sought in by the employee 35 years after his induction into the service in during which period he had several occasions to see service book, but he raised no objection regarding his date of birth and therefore, in view of unexplained and inordinate delay and relying on Fundamental Rule 56 m a note vide the alteration in the date of birth was declined.
A division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sh. Madan WP C No. Reversing the decision of the High Court it was held that core question was whether two certificates subsequently obtained by the employee should be accepted and the date of birth entered therein be taken as conclusive. The Supreme Court further held that High Court in its writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate forum for undertaking such enquiry into the disputed questions of fact. The Supreme Court held that the date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee but for the employer also.
While determining the dispute in such matters Courts should bear in mind that in change of date of birth long after joining services, particularly when the employee is due to retire shortly which will upset the date recorded in the service record maintained in due course of administration should not generally be accepted. The court was further of the view that the date of birth should not be dealt by the tribunal or High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned as any direction for alteration in the date of birth of the public servant concerned has chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotion which is affected in this process and some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continue in the office, in some cases for years within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion may lose their promotion forever.
Chaddha Supra , an application filed by the employee seeking change of date of birth within a period of two years as provided under Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. The Supreme Court had held that no explanation by the employee as to why he did not go for correction of date of birth on any occasion when he was employed in 7 or 8 institutions makes his claim doubtable. In Vali Mohammed Dosa Bhai Sindhi Supra , while dealing with the Rule of the Bombay Civil Services Rules , it was held that under Rule once an entry of age and date of birth has been made in the service book, no alteration of the entry afterwards could be allowed unless it was shown that entry was wrong for want of care on the part some person, other than individual in question or was obvious a clerical error.
In the circumstances, the judgment of a Division Bench directing alteration in the date of birth was quashed by the Supreme Court. Ramaswami Supra , the positive case put forth by the employees was that it was after the demise of his mother that he has discovered that his real date of birth was different than what was recorded in that service record. The Supreme Court had held that even in absence of statutory rules like 16 A, the principle of estoppel would apply and authorities concerned would be justified in declining to alter the date of birth and if such a decision is challenged, the court also ought not to grant any relief even if it is shown that the date of birth as originally recorded was incorrect because the candidate concerned had represented a different date of birth to be taken into consideration obviously with a view that would be to his advantage.
Once having secured entry into the service, possibly preference to other candidates, the principle of estoppel would clearly be applicable and relief of change of date of birth can be legitimately denied. In Syed Khalid Rizvi supra , the Supreme Court held that for invoking Rule-3 of All India Services Conditions of Service -Residuary Matters Rule, requirement is that there should be an appointment to the service in accordance with rules, and by operation of the rule, undue hardship has been caused, that too in an individual case, the Central Govt.
It was further held that the conditions of recruitment and conditions of service are distinct and the conditions of appointment according to rules are preceded by condition of service. The conditions of the recruitment cannot be relaxed but the condition of service may be relaxed while exercising power under Rule The Supreme Court had also held that relaxation under Rule-3 would be a policy matter, which will be in the discretion of the Executive and the Courts will not interfere and issue a direction to the Govt.
Verma and Ors. Giving it a 'B' grade, Paras asserted that the film was the best romantic comedy film in a long time.
Gluck adheres to the formula. According to The New York Times , Friends with Benefits , a film "about love and sex in the age of social networking, gets some of its juice and tang partly by trash-talking its own genre. The setup is familiar, as are the essential elements: a single man and a single woman, two battered hearts yet a pair of resilient, eager, pretty bodies They were just quickly parentalized and became a caretaker.
And the caretaking is all part of the 'going for a broken person' and trying to fix them. Timberlake added that Friends with Benefits is a film for "our generation; people that are between 25 and 30 years of age that are moving into a different part of their life. They are not sure what type of commitment they are comfortable with or what they're gonna do for the rest of their life".
Friends with Benefits was released in North America on July 22, , in 2, theaters. The film had similar success internationally. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Friends with Benefits Theatrical release poster. Keith Merryman David A. Newman Harley Peyton. As a viewer, I don't want to walk into a movie called Friends with Benefits and see the PG version.
For me, you can't have a movie like that without embracing what the title is.
2. General Philosophical Questions about Moral Reasoning
The look, thanks to director of photography Michael Grady, and the conversations on sex and commitment are open and open-ended. Important issues about the inherent clash between changing mores and traditional values get noodled over a bit. The sex talk is graphic, the sex itself is explicit and energetic, and Jamie and Dylan have a kind of sweetness that makes you want to root for them. Ironically, the problem is that Friends with Benefits doesn't go far enough when it gets to the substantial stuff.stenvermeichuanrand.cf/cheesemaking/
Moral Reasoning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
As Freud famously said — even romantic comedies need to take their sex seriously or there will be no satisfaction. Kunis's easy authority grounds the movie, while Timberlake tapdances delightfully around the edges. His voice and his manner are light, there's barely a hair on the guy's chest, yet his confidence and wit are sexy in a way entirely befitting a smart urban romance. British Board of Film Classification. July 4, Archived from the original on May 5, Retrieved May 4, Box Office Mojo. Archived from the original on October 17, Retrieved November 11, Box Office Pro.
Retrieved April 22, Archived from the original on October 5, Retrieved June 12, Archived from the original on December 19, Retrieved August 29, The Guardian. Archived from the original on December 21, Retrieved September 11, Deadline Hollywood. April 6, Archived from the original on September 21, Archived from the original on October 4, Retrieved July 13, July 23, Archived from the original on July 24, Retrieved July 23, September 14, Archived from the original on October 21, Retrieved September 14, USA Today.
Archived from the original on March 3, New York Daily News. Retrieved October 22, Entertainment Weekly.
Lapse in Judgment (Friends With Benefits - Book 2)
Archived from the original on May 24, Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on November 5, Retrieved July 19, The New Zealand Herald. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved July 30, Digital Spy. Archived from the original on September 24, The Independent. April 20, Archived from the original on July 11, Retrieved April 20, The Huffington Post.
July 6, Archived from the original on July 9, Retrieved July 7, Archived from the original on January 12, Archived from the original on July 16, Retrieved September 18, BBC News. Retrieved August 30, Archived from the original on December 13, Retrieved December 10, Archived from the original on September 2, Retrieved August 22, Retrieved July 25, Archived from the original on June 10, Retrieved September 2, Rotten Tomatoes.
Fandango Media. Retrieved May 21, Archived from the original on July 2, Retrieved July 22, Archived from the original on December 20, Archived from the original on January 13, We're Just Friends. You Know the Rules. The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 23, Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on June 2, Archived from the original on July 26, Archived from the original on October 18, Archived from the original on November 19,
Related Lapse in Judgment (Friends with Benefits - Book 2)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved