Back
Rajasthan High Court
Honble DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, CJ. & RAJESH BALIA, J.
Om Prakash Solanki - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Another - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 554 of 1999
Decided On : November 27, 2000
It is no more res integra that the date of birth once recorded in the Service-Book cannot be sought to be changed and this position is more than clear from the provisions of Rule 8(2) (a) and 8(2) (b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. (Para 7)
No Judicial Officer or other employees of the Service can claim a right of correction of date of birth and entertainment of such writ applications for correction of date of birth. It will mar the chances of promotion of his juniors and prove to be an undue encouragement to the other employees to make similar applications with the sole object of preventing their retirement when due. The Supreme Court has held that extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to make employees of the Government or its instrumentalities to continue in service beyond the period of their entitlement according to dates of birth accepted by their employees, placing reliance on the so called newly found material. In the instant case the petitioner has joined the Rajasthan Judicial Service on 3.1.1982. He is in service for about 18 years with no objection whatsoever raised as to his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct. However the petitioner came forward with the writ petition in the year 1999 seeking correction of his date of birth in his Service Records at the fag end of his service, who is due to retire on superannuation on 30.4.2001. The very conduct of non registering an objection for all these years should be a sufficient reason for this Court not to entertain the writ application on the ground of acquiescence and laches. (Para 9)
(2). According to the petitioner he belongs to a rustic and illiterate family having meagre source of livelihood. His parents are illiterate. They were not conversant with the Rules and regulations. It is his further case that due to financial crisis the petitioners parents could not get the horoscope cast from an Astrologer at the time of petitioners birth or thereafter. The correct date of birth i.e. 3.10.1944 was recorded in petitioners primary, middle and secondary level school leaving certificates issued by the competent authorities. However as per service records in the Judiciary the date of birth of the petitioner has been entered as 10.4.1943.
(3). The following is the further explanation for the incorrect date of birth entry:
``It is further relevant to mention here that after passing the Secondary Examination, which was conducted by the School Authorities and considered to be equivalent to Xth Class at the relevant time, petitioners father failed to get him admitted into the Higher Secondary Class well in time. Finding admission being closed to Higher Secondary Class, his father got petitioners examination Form filled-up for High School Examination, 1961 as a private candidate. Unfortunately, at the time of filling up this Examination Form, due to inadvertance, his date of birth was filled in as 10.04.1943 erroneously instead of his correct date of birth of 3.10.1944. This blunder resulted due to want of horoscope, copy of Transfer Certificate or any other relevant document/certificate readily available at the time of filling-up the High School Examination Form as a private candidate. It is in this fact-situation that a wrong date of birth was shown in the High School Examination Certificate, 1961; a true and exact copy of which is being submitted herewith and marked as Annexure 4.
It is submitted that he made an application for correction in his date of birth from 10.4.1943 to 3.10.1994 within the limitation prescribed under Rule 7(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 which provides that no claim and request for condonation, pay fixation, change in emoluments, correction in date of birth, change in service history etc. will be entertained by the Government unless such claims had been made three years prior to the due date of retirement. The petitioner made a representation dated 30.11.92. After a lapse of one year the petitioner received a letter dated 20.1.95 along with a copy of the report of the District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh directing the petitioner to submit his clarification on certain discrepancies/points raised in the report. In response to the said letter the petitioner submitted his clarification in detail vide his letter dated 15.3.1995. However, his representation was rejected without giving opportunity to the petitioner to plead and prove his case. The petitioner thereafter moved a review petition dated 17.1.98 with a prayer to reconsider and review the whole matter and allow the change in date of birth. The petitioner received a letter from the Registrar General dated 2.3.98 informing him that the application submitted by him had been filed. According to the petitioner there cannot be even an iota of suspicion that the claim of the petitioner is false and that the State Govt. is only the competent authority under the Rules for taking appropriate decision in the matter and the case of the petitioner has not been referred to forwarded to the State Government.
(4). A reply to
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
