Writ Petition No.1649 of 1998

6th May, 2008

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. I. S. THAKUR
Respondent Counsel: Mr. K. R. BELOSEY

Cases Cited:
Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, (1993)2 SCC 162 [Para 3]
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Misra, (1975)2 SCC 840 [Para 3]
State of Gujarat Vs. Ali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi, 2006 AIR SC 2735 [Para 4]
Jawahar Lal Sazawal Vs. State of J. & K., (2002)3 SCC 219 [Para 4]
Gorakhnath S. Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No.6531/2006, Dt.:19-1-2007 [Para 4]
Chief Medical Officer Vs. Khadeer Khadri, AIR 1995 SC 850 [Para 4]

JUDGMENT

BILAL NAZKI, J.:- On 22nd December, 1965 the petitioner was appointed as clerk. His date of birth was recorded as per school record presented by him as 1st June, 1940. For the first time the petitioner applied for correction of his date of birth in his service record on 29th August, 1989, i.e. after 24 years of entering into service. In 1994 the Government issued a Circular laying down guidelines for correction in the date of birth in the service record. The petitioner made another representation after the said Circular on 5th January, 1995 seeking correction of his death of birth. This was rejected. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition seeking correction of his date of birth in his service record. He wants his date of birth to be declared as 11th June, 1942 and evidence according to him was some birth extract issued by Mamlatdar, Patan on 6th October, 1965. It may be noted here that the petitioner joined service on 22nd December, 1965 and on his own showing he was in possession of the extract issued by the Mamlatdar on that date, as it was issued to him two months prior to his appointment. Therefore, there is no doubt that the petitioner, according to him, knew before joining the service that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded in his school leaving certificate and also in his service record. He was holding a General Accounts Officer's post at the time he filed the writ petition. So it can also be safely presumed that he knew the consequences. The petitioner moved an application for the first time after 24 years seeking correction of his date of birth. The issues raised in this writ petition are covered by number of judgments of the Supreme Court.

2. Before going to those judgments, it may also be pertinent to have a glance at the Rules governing the procedure with respect to recording of date of birth in the service record. Rule 38 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981, (for short "Civil Services Rules"), lays down the procedure under sub-rule (2). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 38 lays down, "while recording the date of birth, the following procedure should be followed". Sub-rule 2(a) of Rule 38 lays down, "The date of birth should be verified with reference to documentary evidence and a certificate recorded to that effect stating the nature of the document relied on". All other Sub-Rules except sub-rule (f) are not necessary for the present controversy. Sub-Rule (f) lays down, "When once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in a service book no alteration of the entry should afterwards be allowed, unless it is known that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual in question or is an obvious clerical error". There is an instruction also, which lays down, "Normally, no application for alteration of the entry regarding date of birth as recorded in the service book or service roll of a Government servant should be entertained after a period of five years commencing from the date of his entry in Government service". Thereafter, there is another instruction which lays down procedure in case the date of birth is to be changed. Sub-Rule (f) of Rule 38(2) clears any room for doubt that once date of birth is recorded in terms of Rule 38(2)(a), it cannot be altered except for two reasons. The two reasons having been explained in Rule 38(2)(f) that (1) the entry was made due to want of care on the part of a person other than the person who wants his date of birth to be changed OR (2) if there is a clerical error. In our view, therefore, even if an application was made within five years of entering into service, the entry could not have been changed, on the basis of any evidence a person may have with him except for the reasons mentioned in Rule 38(2)(f) of the Civil Services Rules. On this short ground only this writ petition can be dismissed as admittedly the petitioner was in possession of his birth extract issued by the Mamlatdar, which he wants to rely now, before entering into service, but he did not make any representation for change of his date of birth for 24 years after entering into service.

3. The judgments of the Supreme Court are many which cover such a controversy. However, we will refer to a few. In Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, reported in (1993)2 SCC 162, there was a delay of five years for alteration. The Rules had been amended as in the present case and the Rule which was being interpreted by the Supreme Court was para materia with the present Rule. The Rule before the Supreme Court was, if, (a) a request in this regard is made within five years of his entry into Government service; (b) it is clearly established that a genuine bona fide mistake has occurred, and (c) the date of birth so altered would not make him ineligible to appear in any School or University or Union Public Service Commission examination in which he had appeared, or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered Government Service. The petitioner's Counsel submitted that since the amendment was carried in the year 1994 he could apply within five years of the amendment. The same argument was made before the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court held, "It was obvious that the request for correction of date of birth is required to be made by the Government servant within five years of his entry into the Government service and his date of birth may be corrected, if it is established that a genuine bona fide mistake had occurred while recording his date of birth at the time of his entry into Government service. The argument was made that the amendment had been carried in the year 1979 and therefore the five years period was to be calculated from the date of amendment. This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment". The Supreme Court in this case relied on the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Misra, reported in (1975)2 SCC 840. In paragraph 15 the Supreme Court also held, "In the instant case the date of birth recorded at the time of entry of the respondent into service as May 20, 1934 had continued to exist, unchallenged between 1956 and September, 1991, for almost three and a half decades. The respondent had the occasion to see his service-book on numerous occasions. He signed the service-book at different places at different points of time. Never did he object to the recorded entry. The same date of birth was also reflected in the seniority lists of LDC and UDC, which the respondent had admittedly seen". In the present case, we presume that the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in his service-book was also reflected in other documents like seniority list. This case is worst than the case that was before the Supreme Court. As according to the petitioner himself, he was in possession of the birth extract which showed his date of birth 11th June, 1942 before he entered into service.

4. Similarly, there is a judgment in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Ali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi, reported in 2006 AIR SC 2735. The Supreme Court in this case held that, "an application for correction of date of birth should not be dealt with by the Courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view ;only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, in as much as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, in as much as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may loose the promotion for ever". The law appears to be definite in the case of alteration of date of birth. The petitioner also submits that the Supreme Court has time and again held that coordinate benches of the equal sum should follow the judgment of the earlier bench. In this connection, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jawahar Lal Sazawal and Others Vs. State of J&K and Others, report in (2002)3 SCC 219. Now let us see the unreported Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, on which reliance is placed by the Petitioner. This Judgment is in the case Gorakhnath S. Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., in Civil Appellate Side Writ Petition No.6531 of 2006 decided on 19th January, 2007. This was a case of a person who was working as an Assistant Teacher. He contended that for the first time he came to know that his date of birth in the school register was wrongly recorded. This knowledge came to him as he made search in the record of Birth & Deaths Register maintained by the State Government and he found that his correct date of birth was 9th May, 1951 whereas in the school register it was shown as 21st June, 1949. So the petitioner relied on entry in Birth and Death Record. His case was basically filed on the basis of a Government Resolution dated 16th March, 1983 whereby amendment was made to Rule 26.4 of the Appendix to the Secondary School Code and according to him the person who had been a student or was a student could apply to the relevant Officer in the relevant Zilla Parishad to make alteration in the date of birth in school record based on documentary evidence available. Therefore, he sought a writ to direct the School Authorities to correct his date of birth in the School Leaving Certificate. The court directed the School Authority to make the necessary correction if the birth extract provided by the petitioner was genuine document. It also gave a direction that if the School Authority makes correction in the record, then the employer should also make the necessary amendment. Rule 38 of the Civil Services Rules was relied upon by the State but the Court while noting down Rule 38(2)(f) also recorded the argument that no change can be made after the period of five years. Reliance was also placed by the State on the Judgment in the case of Chief Medical Officer Vs. Khadeer Khadri, reported in AIR 1995 SC 850. But the judgment was distinguished on the ground that there was a rule which was interpreted by the Supreme Court which prescribed that change can be made only within three years from the date of entry into the service. The Court also held, "There is nothing before us to show that there is any bar, if there be documentary evidence available, to effect entries in the Primary School records. In the secondary school, the Secondary School Code so provides". So the learned Division Bench only considered whether there was a bar in effecting change in the primary school record, para 3 of the judgment is very clear about it. However, it did not deal with the bar created under Rule 32(2)(f) of the Civil Services Rules. Therefore, this judgment is distinguishable and would not cover the present case. The Court proceeded on an assumption that there was no bar for correction in the school records and then gave further directions that if school records were corrected then the employer should also correct its records. In the present case, there is no such relief claimed and secondly this was a case in which the petitioner had claimed that he, for the first time, came to know in the year 2004 that his date of birth has been recorded incorrectly. Whereas in the present case, it is the case of the petitioner himself that he was in possession of a birth extract before he joined services.

5. For the reasons given above, we do not find any merits in this writ petition, which is, accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged.

6. No order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.