The court's decision was based on the principle that in cases where a petitioner provides supporting documents for a requested correction and approaches the department in a timely manner, it is in the interest of justice to direct the verification of the documents and make necessary corrections.

ORDER :

By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

“That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents No.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to get the date of birth of the petitioner corrected in the office record and instead of 14.02.1967, the date of birth of the petitioner may be ordered to be recorded as 14.02.1969 and furthermore, the respondent No.3 may also be directed to issue revised detail-marks cards for the 8th and 10th standard.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:-

3. According to the petitioner, he joined as a Clerk in the office of respondent No.2 on 28.01.2008. At the time of his joining, the respondent-Department had entered his date of birth in the service record as 14.08.1967, in terms of his date of birth reflected in his matriculation certificate. However, said date of birth of the petitioner as was entered in the service record as also in the matriculation certificate, was incorrect as his actual date of birth was 14.08.1969. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for the correction of his date of birth. According to the petitioner, he approached the authorities concerned including the Department within the time stipulated in Rule 7(1) of HPFR for the said purpose. The grievance of the petitioner is that the date of birth of the petitioner has not been corrected in his service record as respondents No.1 and 2 have taken a stand that needful cannot be done till the date of birth as entered in the matriculation certificate of the petitioner is corrected by respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 is insisting that needful cannot be done by it until and unless there is a direction issued in this regard by some Competent Court of Law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the factum of the date of birth of the petitioner being 14.08.1969 is clearly borne out from Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 appended with the petition, which include his School Leaving Certificate pertaining to Class-5th, birth certificate issued in his favour by the statutory authority and his date of birth entered in the Pariwar Register. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to an order dated 13.09.2010, passed by this Court in CWP(T) No.6738 of 2008, titled as Miss Puja vs. Secretary, Department of Rural Development & Ors., in which in similar circumstance, this Court had disposed of the petition by directing the respondents therein to verify the documents filed by the petitioner therein showing her correct date of birth and make necessary correction, in case the contention of the petitioner was found to be correct. He submits that the petitioner herein shall be satisfied in case this Writ Petition is also disposed of with similar directions.

5. Learned Advocate General, submits that though there is no dispute that the petitioner had approached the respondent-Department within the stipulated period, yet the department is not in a position to unilaterally make any changes in the date of birth of the petitioner, entered in the service record, for the reasons that as the department had made the relevant entry on the basis of the documents supplied by the petitioner himself when he entered the job, therefore, until and unless correction was incorporated in the said certificate, the department cannot do anything.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the date of birth as is reflected in the matriculation certificate of the petitioner is based on the date of birth as it stood entered in the Middle Class Examination Certificate of the petitioner which obviously was based upon information provided to the Board by either the parents or guardians of the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, there was no ambiguity in the date of birth of the petitioner as it stood entered in the matriculation certificate and otherwise also until and unless an appropriate Court order that necessary correction be inc