SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 589

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Shri Tate Nabum, S/o Lt. Hejung Nabum – Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P. And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 189 of 2018
Decided on : 13-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. C. Modi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. R. Basar, Govt. Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Correction of date of birth in the service book can only be made within five years of entry into government service, and a genuine mistake must be established.

Headnote:

Date of Birth Correction - Government Service - O.M. dated 24.03.2024 - The court discussed the petitioner's request to correct his date of birth in the service book, based on documents and attestation form. The court considered the O.M. dated 24.03.2024, which allows correction within five years of entry into government service if a genuine mistake is established. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a genuine mistake and dismissed the writ petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a direction to correct his date of birth in the service book from 07.07.1976 to 09.09.1978, based on documents and attestation form.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a genuine mistake in the entry of his date of birth and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's date of birth in the service book could be corrected at a distant point of time, beyond the five-year period stipulated in the O.M. dated 24.03.2024.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as per the O.M. dated 24.03.2024, correction of date of birth in the service book can only be made within five years of entry into government service, and a genuine mistake must be established. Since the petitioner failed to establish a genuine mistake, the court dismissed the writ petition.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's request to correct his date of birth in the service book.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. The short grievance raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding is for a direction to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 09.09.1978 in place of 07.07.1976, which has been wrongly entered in his service book.

3. The petitioner was appointed as constable on 28.02.1996. The age of the candidate, at the relevant point of time for appointment to the post of constable, was from 17 to 20 years. According to the petitioner, he being more than 17 years of age, he was selected and appointed as constable. The certificate issued by the Headmaster clearly reflects that the date of birth of the petitioner is 09.09.1978. The petitioner had submitted the said certificate issued by the Headmaster on 12.01.1996, at the time of recruitment. Thereafter, a transfer certificate issued on 07.10.1996 was again submitted before the concerned authority. The petitioner has also relied on the matriculation certificate which indicates that the date of birth of the petitioner is 09.09.1978.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has come to know the wrong entry of his date of birth only in the year 2017, when the seniority list of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was published, in which his date of birth was wrongly shown as 07.07.1976. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that his date of birth has been recorded in the service book as 07.07.1976.

5. Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents including the matriculation certificate clearly reflects that the date of birth of the petitioner is 09.09.1978. However, the respondent authorities have wrongly recorded his date of birth as 07.07.1976, in the service book. He submits that since the relevant records clearly reflect the actual date of birth of the petitioner as 09.09.1978, the respondents authorities be directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 09.09.1978, in place of 07.07.1976.

6. Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel, has relied on the judgment of this Court dated 18.02.2014, passed in WP(C) No.1762/2007 (Bhuban Chandra Baruah vs. The Food Corporation of India and others).

7. On the other hand, Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents, submits that as per the attestation form submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment, it reflects the date of birth as 07.07.1976 and his age was shown as 20 years. The form has been filled up by the petitioner himself on 27.06.1996. On the basis of the attestation form filled up and submitted by the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered as 07.07.1976. The seniority list of Constable was published in the year 2004, reflecting the date of birth of the petitioner as 07.07.1976 and thereafter, in the year 2010 and then in the year 2017, the seniority lists of Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector were published, clearly showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 07.07.1976. The petitioner had raised no objection despite having knowledge of his date of birth being clearly reflected as 07.07.1976.

8. Having regard to the matriculation certificate, Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate, submits that the same has been obtained in the year 2011, as he completed matriculation on 19.04.2011 from the National Institute of Open Schooling, while in service. Therefore, the matriculation certificate cannot be relied on. Since the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered on the basis of the information and the documents furnished by the petitioner, no correction can be made. That apart, as per the O.M. dated 24.03.2024, it is only when there is a genuine bona fide mistake in entry of date of birth, it should be claimed for correction within five years. Since the petitioner has the knowledge of his date of birth at the time entry into service and thereafter in the year

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top