Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 2315
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
The Director, Directorate Of School Education - Appellant
Versus
V. Ranganathan - Respondent
Civil Appeal No 9246 of 2019 (@ SLP (Civil) No 12908 of 2019)
Decided on : 06-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Venkataramani, Mr.V.G.Pragasam, Mr.S.Prabu Ramasubramanian,
Mr.S.Manuraj, Mr.Yashraj Singh Bundela, Mr.Praveen Vignesh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Sirajudeen, Mr.Karri Venkata Reddy, Ms.Astha Tyagi, AOR
The delay in seeking correction of service records, as per Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, can be reason enough to reject the claim for alteration of date of birth.
Headnote:
Date of Birth - Service Records - Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought a correction in his date of birth in the service records from 17 August 1958 to 18 September 1959. The High Court allowed the alteration, but the State contested the judgment, alleging that the representations for correction were not authentic.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent's delay in seeking the correction, as per Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, was unjustified. The High Court erred in setting aside the decision of the Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in seeking the correction of the date of birth in the service records.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, which required a request for correction to be made within five years of entry into service. The delay in seeking the correction was unjustified and was reason enough to reject the respondent's claim.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court were set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 24 August 2018. The High Court allowed the writ petition instituted by the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and allowed an alteration in the date of birth of the respondent from 17 August 1958 to 18 September 1959 in the service records together with all consequential benefits.
3. The respondent was initially appointed as a post-graduate Teacher in Kamban Government Higher Secondary School, Nettapakkam, Puducherry on 18 July 1988. His date of birth in the service book was entered as 17 August 1958 on the basis of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. Consequently, the date on which the respondent was to attain superannuation was 31 August 2018. On 1 February 2017, the respondent was posted as Chief Education Officer, Puducherry. On 11 October 2017, the respondent submitted a representation for the correction of his date of birth from 17 August 1958 to 18 September 1959. The representation was rejected on 3 November 2017 following which the respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. The case of the respondent was that he had taken steps earlier to seek a correction in his date of birth by submitting representations on 21 August 1989, 11 April 1991 and 11 May 1995. In response to the OA before the Tribunal, a counter affidavit was filed by the Directorate of School Education stating that the alleged representations dated 21 August 1989 and 11 April 1991 were not authentic and in any event they were not addressed to the competent authority.
5. The Tribunal dismissed the OA by its judgment dated 2 August 2018, holding that there was no reason for the respondent to submit a plea belatedly on 11 October 2017 for a change in his date of birth in the service records. The Tribunal noted that the service records had been shown to the respondent in 1997 and there was no evidence of his having pursued the matter until November 2017 when he was due to superannuate on 31 August 2018. This view of the Tribunal was reversed by the High Court.
6. Before the High Court it appears that counsel appearing on behalf of the Directorate of Education submitted that the representation dated 21 August 1989 had been received but the High Court was informed that there was no record to show that the subsequent representations of 11 April 1991 and 11 May 1995 were submitted. The High Court came to the conclusion that the respondent had been pursuing the claim for an alteration of his date of birth in the service record right from 21 August 1989 and could not be blamed for the inaction on the part of the Directorate of Education. Hence, according to the High Court, this was not a case where the respondent had agitated a claim for a change in the date of birth towards the end of his career. Hence the decision of this Court in Union of India v Harmam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 was distinguished. The High Court, in consequence, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and allowed the claim of the respondent with consequential benefits. As a result of the judgment of the High Court, the respondent continued to remain in service on the post with his date of birth being 18 September 1959 instead of 17 August 1958. The judgment of the High Court has been contested by the State. It has been urged that even before the Tribunal, it was the specific objection of the appellant that the representation allegedly submitted on 21 August 1989 was not authentic.
7. Mr R Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel has placed on record a compilation of documents indicating that on 27 September 2019 the respondent has been placed under suspension in pursuance of an order of the Chief Vigilance Officer in the Government of Puducherry. A First Information Report has also been lodged against the respondent on the ground that he had tampered
