Important point
Correction in entries regarding date of birth made in Government records on the basis of which the Government servant got the service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before retirement or at the fag end of his retirement.

Headnote:Service Law—U.P. Recruitment Service (Determination of the Date of Birth) Rules, 1974—Rule 2—Date of birth—Respondent’s claim for change in date of birth from 30.7.1941 to 16.10.1945—Respondent had filed this suit after a gap of 35 years alleging that his date of birth was wrongly entered in the High School Certificate of the year 1960 issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P.—Court of Civil Judge made a direction to correct the date of birth of respondent from 30.7.1941 to 16.10.1945—Appeal—Whether respondent’s claim was barred by limitation—(Yes)—High Court wrongly held that there was a continuing cause of action—Respondent had not moved any application within two years of the High School Certificate being issued through concerned Principal—Correction in entries made in Government records on basis of which the Government servant got the service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before retirement or at the fag end of his retirement —Claim made by respondent cannot be entertained.
Held : In the instant case, the respondent had himself admitted that the signature in the High School Examination form was signed by him and, therefore, his plea that the form was filed by his teacher is not at all sustainable. We have also perused the judgment of the appellate Court. The appellate Court has after appreciating facts and law rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation as the relevant rules framed by the U.P. Board of Education had not been followed by the respondent. As per Rule 7 of G.R., any application for correction is to be made within two years of issuing certificate, while in the present case it was made after more than 15 years i.e. on 25.05.1981 and the suit was filed on 07.04.1995. The High Court, in our view, has wrongly held that there was a continuing cause of action. Even if for the sake of arguments if it is accepted that document No. 63 [Ga] i.e. letter dated 13.10.1981 was written, even then the respondent’s suit was barred by limitation as he filed the suit in 1995 after more than 14 years. The High Court has wrongly relied on the alleged application dated 27.02.1971 and Exhibit 63 & 64 and has failed to appreciate that the lower appellate Court after perusing the evidence categorically held that the respondent could have summoned the record from Kakori Shaheed Inter College, Jalalabad, Shahjahanpur when he got admission in Class IX and documents of his date of birth should have been produced by him at the time of admission in Class IX. These documents were the best documents to prove the respondent’s case. The respondent’s failed to produce these documents before the Court. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent’s claim regarding the correction of his date of birth could not be entertained after several decades, specially on the plea of superannuation. The respondent being an educated man having completed his education upto M.A.Lt. and having remained in service for about four decades reaching the age of his superannuation discovered his age as incorrect by over four years short to the record one could be unthinkable and unbelievable. The respondent’s date of birth having been written and declared by him in his examination form for High School and entered as such in High School Certificate and also entered as such in his service record by him, could not be changed without having recourse to the law, the education rules and the service rules and the provisions governing the respondent against settled law. We have already noticed that the respondent’s suit is time barred as he has filed the suit in 1995 whereas High School Examination Certificate which is sought to be corrected is of 60 and this certificate was issued in time and he is seeking this correction after 39 years. It may be mentioned at this point of time that after the written statement of the defendant/appellant-herein the plaintiff/respondent-herein has not filed any replications with counter allegation that how and why his original suit is not time barred. This apart, any correction of any clerical error can be made if the candidate has drawn the attention and has moved an application through concerned Principal within two years of issuing the certificate. As per Rule 7 of G.R. any application for such correction is to be made within two years of issuing of the certificate. In the present case, the respondent has not moved any application within two years of this certificate being issued through concerned Principal. (Paras 14 and 15)
As per the existing rule, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever. The amended rule of 1980 was deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 28.05.1974 and as per the substituted Rule, the date of birth or the age recorded in the service book at the time of entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes and that no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of date of birth or age in any circumstances whatsoever. The respondent has given his date of birth as 30.07.1941 at the time of entry into service which has also been recorded in the service records of the respondent. The above amended rule which come into force w.e.f. 28.05.1974 stipulates that no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever and that the date of birth or age recorded in the service book at the time of his entry into government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age as the case may be for all purposes. In view of the above rule, we hold that the correct date of birth of the respondent is only 30.07.1941 and the claim now made by the respondent to correct his date of birth from 30.07.1941 to 16.10.1945 cannot at all be entertained or encouraged. (Paras 18 to 20)

Judgment

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 10.03.2003 passed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 334 of 1999 whereby the High Court allowed the second appeal filed by the respondent-herein.

3. Respondent was working as S.D.I. in the Education Department. As per his service book, his date of birth was 30.07.1941. The Governor using the powers under conditional part of Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed the following Notification. The notification dated 28.05.1974 reads thus :-

“State of U.P.

Niyukti Vibhag Anubhag-4

Notification

28th May, 1974

No. 41/269 Niyukti-4 Governor using the powers under conditional part of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, frames following Niyamawali:-

1. Short title an commencement (1) This Niyamawali will be called date of birth determination Niyamawali, 1974 for the purpose of appointment in service in U.P.

2. It shall be enforced at once.

(2) Exact date of birth or determination of Age of a Government servant the date of birth or determination of age of a Government servant which has been written in his High School Certificate or equivalent to it after passing the examination or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination, the date of birth or age which has been written in his service book at the time of entering in Government service, in regard to his services, for all the purposes, whether entitled for promotions/supersession/pre-retirement or retirement or retrial benefits, the date of birth or age as mentioned therein. Any application form or application for correction in his date of birth or age will not be accepted in any manner having any circumstances of any cost.

3. The enforcement of this Niyamawali, a relevant service rule or any order which in corporate some reverse matters even shall be effective.

By Order

(Gulam Hussain)

Commissioner & Secretary

................”

3. The respondent-herein, after a gap of 35 years, filed a Regular Suit No. 176 of 1995 with the prayer to correct his date of birth from 30.07.1941 to 16.10.1945 on the ground that his date of birth was wrongly entered in his High School Certificate of the year 1960 issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad (hereinafter called “the Parishad”), U.P., Allahabad. A written statement was filed by the Secretary of the Parishad in the said suit explaining the facts that the respondent himself filled up the High School examination form for he year 1960, which was duly forwarded by the Principal concerned after going through the relevant records therein and in view of the High School examination form of the year 1960, the High School Certificate was issued by the Secretary of the Parishad wherein the respondent’s date of birth was mentioned as 30.07.1941. It is thus seen that the respondent started litigation for the correction of his date of birth after a gap of 35 years and just four years of his retirement.

5. The Court of Civil Judge [Junior Division], Sitapur delivered its decision dated 17.07.1999 in favour of the respondent with the direction to correct the date of birth from 30.07.1941 to 16.10.1945. Aggrieved by the orders passed in the civil suit, the Parishad filed Civil Appeal No. 73 of 1999 before the 1st Addl. District Judge, Sitapur who by his order dated 07.08.1999 allowed the appeal of the respondent and held that :

“....It is admitted by the plaintiff that he himself put his signatures on the High School Examination Form. So he is responsible for the entries in this form.”

“.......The evidence given by plaintiff in this case is not of such nature that may be said to be leading to this irresistible conclusion that his date of birth is 30.10.45 and, which may be said to the conclusive and irrefutable proof of the fact that his date of birth is 30.10.45 and that date of birth in his high school examination certificate i.e. 30.7.41 is incorrect and that it should be corrected. The finding o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 708

Important pointCorrection in entries regarding date of birth made in Government records on the basis of which the Government servant got the service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before retirement or at the fag end of his retirement.

Cases Referred (7)

Important point
Correction in entries regarding date of birth made in Government records on the basis of which the Government servant got the service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before retirement or at the fag end of his retirement.