IMPORTANT POINT
Rule 16A of the All India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958, except in cases where a clerical error has occurred, does not entitle an officer to ask for change in the date of birth which is once recorded in his application of recruitment or in the service book.

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent was entitled to ask for an alteration of his date of birth as entered in his service record, which entry had been made at the time when he had joined service.

2. The respondent had taken the All India Joint Service Competitive examination in the year 1967. On the basis of the said examination he was selected as a direct recruit to the Indian Police Service (IPS) of 1968 batch. In his service book the date of birth which was entered was 17th June, 1939. This entry was made on the basis of his date of birth as recorded in the senior school leaving certificate and also in his application for appearing for civil services examination of the year 1967 in which he was selected.

3. Nearly fourteen years after the respondent had joined service he submitted a representation dated 4th September, 1982 to the Andhra Pradesh State Government, the cadre to which he has been assigned, for changing his date of birth to 15th June, 1941. In the said application it was, inter alia, stated that after the demise of his mother, while going through various papers in his house, he found from his horoscope that his date of birth which was written in Tamil corresponded to 15th June, 1941. He also stated that he had obtained extracts from the record of birth from Sub-registrar s office which indicated that his date of birth was 15th June, 1941. Accordingly he requested that his date of birth be altered from 17th June, 1939 to 15th June, 1941.

4. Vide memorandum dated 20th October, 1982 respondent was informed by the State Government that his request for alteration of his date of birth could not be agreed to. Thereafter the respondent wrote a letter dated 1st December, 1982 to the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh requesting him to ask the State Government to forward to the Government of India a representation for correcting his date of birth. To this letter the respondent received a memorandum dated 11th March, 1983 from the Chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh to the effect that the Government did not see any reason to re-open the case which had already been rejected. Thereupon the respondent again vide his letter dated 14th August, 1983 requested the State Government to forward his representation to the Government of India.

5. The aforesaid representation was rejected by the Central Government vide its order dated 23rd May, 1990.

6. Still in pursuit of his desire to get his date of birth altered the respondent adopted a novel method. He filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Sholinghur, impleading the Director of School Education, Madras; District Educational Officer, Vellore and his eldest sister Kamla as the defendants. In the suit the relief claimed was for a decree of mandatory injunction for directing defendants 1 and 2 to alter his date of birth from 17th June, 1939 to 15th June, 1941 in his SSLC book. It is pertinent to notice that neither the State of Andhra Pradesh nor the Union of India were impleaded as parties. The court on 28th October, 1992 decreed the suit and granted the mandatory injunction and ordered that the date of birth of the respondent should be corrected in the SSLC book so as to reflect the respondent s date of birth as being that of 15th June, 1941 instead of 17th June, 1939.

7. Armed with a duly corrected senior school leaving certificate, pursuant to the aforesaid decree having been passed by the Court, the respondent once again made a representation to the Government of India for altering his date of birth to 15th June, 1941. Vide order dated 15th November, 1993, passed in exercise of its power conferred by Rule 16A of the All India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958 the representation of the respondent for change of the date of birth was rejected. Not deterred by this, the respondent made yet another representation on 4th January, 1994 to the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of