Back
1998 Supreme(Cal) 409
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA, DIBYENDU BHUSAN DUTTA
COAL INDIA LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
ARUN KUMAR SINHA - Respondent
M. A. T. 2008 Of 1998
Decided On : 09/10/1998
ALOK BANERJEE, L.K.Gupta, M.K.KUNDU, P.K.MULLICK, PRADYOT KUMAR DAS
A Matriculation Certificate's date of birth is not sacrosanct and does not automatically entitle an officer to have their date of birth corrected after a long period, especially when the age was recorded without supporting documentation and when such a change can adversely affect juniors and disrupt promotion prospects.
Headnote:
DATE OF BIRTH CORRECTION - MATRICULATION CERTIFICATE - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 35 - COURT ANALYSIS - FACTUAL MATRIX - LEGAL PROVISIONS - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION: 1. A Matriculation Certificate's date of birth is not sacrosanct and does not automatically entitle an officer to have their date of birth corrected after a long period. 2. To be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, an entry must be in a public record, state a relevant fact, and be made by a public servant or someone with a legal duty. 3. A school register's date of birth entry is relevant but not conclusive proof of a person's age, especially when the age was recorded without supporting documentation. 4. Section 114 of the Evidence Act presumptions cannot be drawn in cases involving private institution birth certificates because they are disputed facts that cannot be resolved through Article 226 of the Constitution of India's jurisdiction. 5. Courts should not entertain writ applications seeking date of birth changes at the end of an employee's career, as this can adversely affect juniors and disrupt promotion prospects. 6. The burden of proving a recorded date of birth is incorrect lies with the applicant, and such claims must be supported by strong, conclusive evidence. 7. If a birth register entry is found to be questionable, authorities are justified in refusing to change the date of birth in a service book. 8. The court's role in Article 226 cases is not to assess the decision's merits but to identify any illegalities, irrationalities, procedural irregularities, or improprieties in the decision-making process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to correct his date of birth on his Matriculation Certificate, which had been recorded incorrectly. He had passed the Secondary School Examination in 1956, but the certificate showed his date of birth as 28th June 1942 instead of 25th June 1940. The petitioner had a long career in the coal industry, joining the Coal Board in 1965 and later working for Bharat Coking Coal Limited. He applied for correction of his date of birth in 1971 but was unsuccessful. He filed a writ petition in the High Court, which directed the respondents to decide the dispute before processing his selection for the post of Director. The respondents rejected his representation, and the petitioner challenged this decision in the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had failed to provide any cogent reason for discovering his actual date of birth only by accident. His service record had never been corrected, and his erstwhile employer, Coal Board, had not corrected his date of birth. The recording of his date of birth in the executive directory could not be considered a recording in his Service Book. The court also noted that the petitioner had been given an opportunity of hearing, where he produced all relevant documents. Therefore, the court held that the principles of natural justice had been complied with, even though there had been no alteration of his date of birth in his Service Book.
Issues: 1. Whether a Matriculation Certificate's date of birth is sacrosanct and automatically entitles an officer to have their date of birth corrected after a long period? 2. Whether an entry in a school register is conclusive proof of a person's age, especially when the age was recorded without supporting documentation? 3. Whether courts should entertain writ applications seeking date of birth changes at the end of an employee's career? 4. What is the burden of proof in cases where a recorded date of birth is challenged? 5. What is the court's role in Article 226 cases involving challenges to administrative decisions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A Matriculation Certificate's date of birth is not sacrosanct and does not automatically entitle an officer to have their date of birth corrected after a long period, as evidenced by various Supreme Court decisions. 2. An entry in a school register is relevant but not conclusive proof of a person's age, especially when the age was recorded without supporting documentation, as held in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit. 3. Courts should not entertain writ applications seeking date of birth changes at the end of an employee's career, as this can adversely affect juniors and disrupt promotion prospects, as reiterated in Calcutta Port Trust and Ors v. Ajit Kumar Deb. 4. The burden of proving a recorded date of birth is incorrect lies with the applicant, and such claims must be supported by strong, conclusive evidence, as stated in Secy. and Commr. Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran. 5. The court's role in Article 226 cases is not to assess the decision's merits but to identify any illegalities, irrationalities, procedural irregularities, or improprieties in the decision-making process, as emphasized in Commissioner of Police, Bombay and Anr. v. Bhagwan V. Lahane.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order dated 11th May 1998 was set aside. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 11th May, 1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in W. P. No. 30211 (W) of 1997.
( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
( 3 ) THE petitioner passed the Secondary School Examination from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in 1956 where his date of birth was recorded on 25th June, 1940. He had undergone Pre-Professional qualification and Pre-employment mining training from 7th July, 1958 to May, 1961. He appeared and passed 2nd Class Mine Manager's Certificate of Competency Examination in June, 1962. He has also passed Diploma in Mining and Mine Surveying Examination in 1963. On 12. 8. 1965 he joined Coal Board, a statutory authority constituted under Coal Mines (Conservation and Development) Act wherin his aforementioned date of birth was recorded.
( 4 ) HE obtained 1st Class Mine Manager's Certificate of Competency in December, 1969. Allegedly when he was to go abroad, he applied for English version of Certificate from Bihar School Examination Board on 9th January, 1970 and when such certificate was issued he found his date of birth mentioned therein as 28. 6. 1942 whereafter he filed a representation before his the then employer for correction of his date of birth.
( 5 ) IN the mean time the Parliament enacted Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 whereafter he applied for appointment before Custodian General. He was taken on deputation. On 11th April, 1972 however, he joined Bharat Coking Coal Limited. In the year 1974 Coal Board merged with Coal India Limited. Allegedly in the Executive Directory published by Bharat Coking Coal Limited, his date of birth shown as 28. 6. 1942 but in the Executive Directory published in the year 1991 his date of birth was shown on 25. 6. 1940. The writ petitioner thereafter made various representations for correction of his date of birth on 5th August, 1991, 25th March, 1993 and 22nd April, 1996.
( 6 ) THE respondents issued a circular letter on 19th May, 1992 whereby and whereunder a ban was placed on alteration of declared and accepted date of birth except in the manner specified therein. The writ petitioner's prayer for correction of date of birth was rejected on 25th April, 1996 whereafter he filed a writ application in the M. P. High Court. By an order dated 10th July, 1997 the writ application was disposed of by directing the respondents to decide the dispute before the processing of selection to the post of Director; whereafter he was given an opportunity of being heard in person. By reason of an order dated 6th August, 1997 as contained in Annexure 'b' to the writ application his representaion was rejected. The learned trial Judge by reason of the impugned order, inter alia, held that keeping in view the fact that the Bihar School Examination Board cancelled the earlier certificate granted to him and further in view of the fact that he did not obtain any benefit therefrom, the respondents erred in rejecting the representation of the plaintiff.
( 7 ) MR. Mallick, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submitted that the learned trial Judge commited an error in so far as it failed to take into consideration the fact that a Matriculation Certificate cannot be said to be sacrosanct. The learned Counsel further submitted that an application for correction of date of birth having been filed at the fag end of the career, the writ petitioner ought not to have entertained. Referring to Regulation 15 of Coal Mines Regulations it was submitted by the learned Counsel that the petitioner having taken advantage thereof at that point of time he declared himself to be above 21 years of age, now cannot turn down and he was born in the year 1940.
( 8 ) MR. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that it is not a case where the writ petitioner made a representation for c
