The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the bona fide nature of clerical errors and the circumstances of the case when interpreting rules related to the change of date of birth.

JUDGMENT :

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 9th July, 2018 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT) dismissing her OA No. 2544/2017, whereby she had challenged a communication dated 8th June, 2017 of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Respondent No. 1 herein, rejecting her request for changing her date of birth from 30th January, 1958 to 31st January, 1960.

2. The Petitioner joined the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) as a Section Officer on 10th July, 1986 after appearing in the Civil Services Examination, 1984. She joined the Department of Agriculture Cooperation (DoAC), Ministry of Agriculture. Within five years of joining the post, on 22nd January, 1991 the Petitioner applied for a change of date of birth in her service record. She explained that although she was born on 31st January, 1960 in Punjab and her date of birth was so registered in the record of the Chief Registrar Births and Deaths in Punjab, on account of the transferable job of her father, and her having to study in different schools, in one of the schools, due to a clerical mistake her date of birth was mentioned as 30th January, 1958. As a result, this erroneous date of birth is also mentioned in her matriculation certificate.

3. The DoAC by a letter dated 24th November, 1992 sought the advice of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). The DoPT (Respondent No. 2 herein) agreed to the proposal of the DoAC by its letter dated 1st December, 1992 and the Petitioner was accordingly directed to get her date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate, rectified. The Petitioner by a letter dated 24th February, 1993 of the DoAC, was again advised to have her matriculation certificate corrected.

4. On 15th December, 1993 the Petitioner wrote to the DoAC pointing out that as per the extant instructions which laid down the procedure for alteration of the date of birth, the following conditions are required to be satisfied:

“(a) a request in this regard is made within 5 years of his/her entry into Government service.

(b) it is clearly established that a genuine bona-fide mistake has occurred.

(c) the date of birth so altered would not make him/her ineligible to appear in any school or University or Union Public Service Commission examination in which he had appeared, or for entry into Government service on the date on which he/she first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he/she entered Government service.”

5. She pointed out that her case fell well within the above parameters. She further pointed out that there was nothing in the instructions which stipulated getting the date of birth corrected from the Education Board as a pre-condition for alteration in the date of birth in the official records and that if there was such a rule, she should be provided a copy thereof.

6. Meanwhile, the Petitioner was transferred to the Ministry of Road Transport. She again submitted an application for change of date of birth. The case was examined in the Border Road Development Board (‘BRDB’) Secretariat, which again sought concurrence of the DoPT. The DoPT advised expediting the rectification of the date of birth of the Petitioner.

7. On 25th August 2006, the BRDB Secretariat, wrote to the Punjab School Education Board (‘PSEB’) for early correction of the Petitioner’s date of birth in the matriculation certificate. This resulted in the PSEB issuing a duplicate certificate on 7th April, 2008 correcting her date of birth in its records as 31st January, 1960.

8. On 14th October, 2008 the Petitioner was transferred to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MTA). After examining her case the MTA sought the advice of the DoPT for the third time. On 15th January, 2009 the DoPT advised that there was no objection to the Petitioner’s request for change of date of birth and that the MTA may decide the case as powers are delegated to the Ministry/Department under which the Government servants are working.

9. The