The date of birth recorded in the Birth Certificate prevails over the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate, as per the Circular of the State Government dated 18.02.1974.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter-alia, prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ or direction to the respondents, to make the necessary correction in the service record of the petitioner with regard to his date of birth and to enter the correct date of birth, that is, 21.09.1955 in the said record, in place of the incorrect date of birth, that is, 10.11.1952. The petitioner has further prayed for salary to be paid to him from 30.11.2010 which is the date on which he was made to retire considering the incorrect date of birth till the date of retirement as per his correct date of birth.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Overseer in the Office of respondent No. 1- Director of Agriculture, by an order dated 25.03.1976. At the time of appointment, the petitioner had submitted his School Leaving Certificate, in which his date of birth was mentioned as 10.11.1952. This date was recorded in the Service-Book of the petitioner. However, later it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the date of birth mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate is incorrect, as a Birth Certificate has been issued by the competent authority as per the Births and Deaths Register of Village Form No. 14 of Village Santrampur, District Panchmahals, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 21.09.1955. The petitioner made an application for the correction of his date of birth in the service record in consonance with the Birth Certificate, on 08.07.1980. As no action was taken upon the said application by the respondents, several reminders were sent to the petitioner. Ultimately, the application of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 10.03.1981, on the ground of delay. The petitioner made another representation dated 27.07.1984 to respondent No. 1-Director of Agriculture, submitting that he is entitled to get his date of birth changed in the service record on the basis of the Birth Certificate. The petitioner was informed by a letter dated 12.10.1984 by the Project Officer of the respondent Department that he should approach the Court with all relevant documents, so that the publication regarding his correct date of birth can be made in the Official Gazette. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra. The application of the petitioner was rejected, by an order dated 31.07.1998. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Application in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals. This application was partly-allowed, by an order dated 17.07.1999, by remanding the matter. In remand proceedings, the learned Magistrate allowed the application of the petitioner by an order dated 22.10.1999. This order has not been challenged by the respondents. Pursuant to the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner got the corrected date of birth published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 20.01.2000. After doing so, the petitioner again requested respondent No. 1 by an application dated 01.02.2000 to make the necessary correction of his date of birth in the service record, as per the order of the learned Magistrate. Respondent No. 1 addressed a letter dated 04.02.2000 to the petitioner, asking him to explain why he had not made the application for correction of the date of birth after his appointment in service. The petitioner replied by a communication dated 07.03.2000, submitting that he had already filed an application for the necessary correction on 08.07.1980. The petitioner continued to request to the respondents, but to no avail. Certain documents were asked from the petitioner by the respondents, which were supplied by him. Ultimately, by an order dated 29.03.2008, the application of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 1 on two grounds. The first ground was that there was a