Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
VIBHA KANKANWADI, HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
Pravin S/o Janardhan Yeshwante – Appellant
Versus
Chief General Manager (F&A) Finance & Accounts Department, Mumbai – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5394 of 2025
Decided On : 12-12-2025
Key Points: - The petitioner seeks correction of date of birth in service records from 01.01.1970 to 26.09.1972 based on statutory birth documents. (!) (!) - Regulations govern service records and are to be adhered to; birth register extracts carry presumption of correctness over school records. (!) (!) - The court held that the limitation for alteration is governed by MSETCL Service Regulations 2012 (normally within one year from entry), not a six-month limit from Secondary School Code; petitioner acted within permitted period. (!) (!) (!) - Administrative delay and mechanical rejection without cogent reasoning violated principles of administrative fairness. (!) (!) - Schedule 18 of the MSETCL Regulations recognizes birth register extract as sufficient evidence; school records are not mandatory to correct in service records. (!) (!) - The petitioner’s true date of birth is 26.09.1972; respondents’ revocation of correction was unjustified; writ petition allowed. (!) (!) - Impugned communications of 18.07.2018 and 14.12.2023 are quashed and set aside; corrections to service records to be carried out within eight weeks. (!) - There shall be no orders as to costs. (!) - Supporting legal authorities: CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar (birth register presumptive correctness); State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas (unimpeachable evidence may correct incorrect DOB). (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim for date of birth correction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding service regulations and limitations. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's reasoning on evidence and administrative delay. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. conclusion on validity of petitioner's date of birth. (Para 14) |
| 5. order to correct date of birth in service records. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
3. The petitioner has invoked a writ jurisdiction of this court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to correct his date of birth in the service record from 01.01.1970 to 26.09.1972, which according to him, is his true and correct date of birth as reflected in the birth certificate and the birth register extract maintained under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The petitioner also challenges the communications dated 18.07.2018 and 14.12.2023, rejecting his request without due application of mind to the governing service regulations.
4. The facts are substantially undisputed. The petitioner was appointed as a “Manager” under order dated 24.04.2008 and joined duties on 20.05.2008. His date of birth was entered as 01.01.1970 based upon the Secondary School Certificate. Within the period of one year, he submitted a representation dated 28.11.2008 to the competent authority enclosing the birth certificate issued by the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation dated 11.07.1986 as well as an extract from the original birth register maintained under the Registration of Birth and Death Act. During this period, he had also approached this court in Writ petition No. 5845 of 2008 which was disposed of on 06.02.2018, recording that his representation for correction of service record could be decided by the competent authority.
5. The representation was rejected on 18.07.2018 on the ground that the date recorded in the service book matched the SSC and school leaving certificate. Thereafter, in Writ petition No.13493 of 2018, this court on 16.06.2023 directed reconsideration of the petitioner's claim, particularly in light of the birth register extract. Though the petitioner was heard on 07.11.2023, the respondents again rejected his request on 14.12.2023 without examining the statutory documents and without reference to the relevant service regulations. The said rejection was communicated to the petitioner on 02.08.2024, specifically mentioning therein that his representation is rejected and that the date of birth of the petitioner being 01.01.1970 is hereby confirmed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Clause 9 (2) and the instructions in chapter 2 of the MSETCL Service Regulations, 2012 which permits an employee to seek alteration of date of birth within one year of entry into service and further relied upon Schedule 18 which specifically recognizes birth register extract as the most reliable and sufficient evidence of age when the name of the child is entered at the time of birth. According to him, the petitioner's representation was not only within the limitation period prescribed by the regulations but also supported by statutory documents which the respondents could not have ignored.
7. The respondents contended that the limitation was six months and further argued that unless the petitioner first corrected the SSC and school leaving certificate by following the SECONDARY SCHOOL CODE , the service authorities could not alter the service record. They relied upon Rule 26.4 of the SECONDARY SCHOOL CODE to contend that date of birth entries in school records cannot be corrected after the student leaves the school.
8. Having examined the record, we find that the contention of the respondents regarding the limitation being six months is thoroughly misconceived. Clause 9(2) of the MSETCL regulations does not prescribe six months as an outer limit for correction of date of birt
The correction of date of birth in service records is governed by specific service regulations which prioritize statutory documents over school records, establishing a precedent for administrative fa....
If there is good evidence to establish that recorded date of birth is erroneous, correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
The court ruled that correction of the date of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a fundamental right, especially after a significant delay, which can adversely affect other employees' opp....
Delay in seeking correction of date of birth and lack of conclusive proof can justify rejection of such requests by employment authorities.
A government servant's date of birth can be corrected if the request is made within five years and does not affect eligibility for examinations, supported by a valid Birth Certificate.
Continuous requests for correction of clerical errors in service records are valid and should not be dismissed based on timing alone.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
