Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, Puneet Gupta, JJ.
Union Territory of J&K & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Gopal Krishan – Respondent
WP(C) No. 1518 of 2020(O&M)
Decided On : 29-10-2022
Date of Birth - Administrative Tribunal Order - Rules 192, 193 of Police Rules, Article 35-AA(c) of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 - The court discussed Rules 192 and 193 of the Police Rules, which govern the preparation and attestation of character rolls, and Article 35-AA(c) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956, which deals with the alteration of date of birth. The court highlighted the interpretation of these rules and their application in the case, emphasizing that the petitioners' own records acknowledged the correct date of birth of the respondent as 15.09.1968, and thus, the rules were not applicable to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered a case where the Central Administrative Tribunal ordered the correction of the date of birth of a government servant, which was challenged by the petitioners on the grounds of delay, laches, and violation of police rules and civil service regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' own records acknowledged the correct date of birth of the respondent as 15.09.1968, and thus, the rules invoked by the petitioners were not applicable. The court also noted that the respondent had not declared his date of birth as 15.09.1960, and the rules regarding alteration of date of birth were not applicable.
Issues: The issues involved delay and laches in seeking rectification of date of birth, violation of police rules and civil service regulations, and the applicability of the rules regarding alteration of date of birth.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' own records acknowledged the correct date of birth of the respondent as 15.09.1968, and thus, the rules invoked by the petitioners were not applicable. The court also found that the rules regarding alteration of date of birth were not applicable as the respondent had not declared his date of birth as 15.09.1960.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed without costs, as the court found no illegality in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
JUDGMENT
Oswal, J. - The order dated 01.09.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the OA No. 061/0196/2020 titled, Gopal Krishan vs. Union Territory of J&K and others, whereby the petitioners were directed to treat the date of birth of the respondent as 15.09.1968 instead of 15.09.1960 and carry out necessary correction with regard to the date of birth as 15.09.1968 in all relevant documents and service book of the respondent, has been impugned by the petitioners on the ground inter alia that the order impugned has been passed in complete negation of Rules 192 and 193 of the Police Rules, as also in utter disregard of the Article 35-AA(c) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956, that prescribes a period of five years for seeking the correction of the date of birth after entering into the service. It is also stated that the respondent all along was having the knowledge of the entries made in his character roll in light of the abovementioned Police Rules and now after a gap of 25 years cannot seek the correction of date of his birth.
2. Objections stand filed by the respondent in which it has been stated that in the Recruit Register maintained in terms of Rule 180 of Police Rules, in Medical Record and certificate issued by the Medical Officer in terms of Rule 183 of Police Rules and in Long Roll prepared in terms of Rule 205 of Police Rules, the date of birth of the respondent has been mentioned as 15.09.1968. It is also stated that there has been absolute non compliance of Rule 193 at the time of preparation of character roll and it is also stated that in all the seniority lists issued from time to time, the date of birth of the respondent has been correctly mentioned as 15.09.1968. The respondent has denied that there is any delay and laches on his part, as in all the records pertaining to the service of the respondent other than the character roll, the date of birth of the respondent has been correctly mentioned. The tentative seniority list of the Head Constables dated 18.08.2020 has also been placed on record, wherein also the date of birth of the respondent has been mentioned as 15.09.1968.
3. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the application filed by the respondent before the learned Tribunal was required to be rejected only on the ground of delay and laches as the said application was filed after 25 years of entering into the service and no plausible reason has been demonstrated by the respondent for filing the same after the inordinate delay. He further argued that as per Rule 193 of the Police Rules, character roll of the respondent presumably was prepared in presence of the respondent, who had every opportunity to controvert the same at the time of the preparation of the same and further that the rectification cannot be made in the service record in view of the bar contained in Article 35-AA(c) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956.
4. On the contrary, Mr. Rahul Pant, learned senior counsel representing respondent has vehemently argued that in recruit register, in medical record of the recruit and the certificate issued by the Medical Officer before enrolment as also in the Long Roll, the date of birth of the respondent has been mentioned as 15.09.1968 and it is only in the character roll that the date of birth of the respondent has been incorrectly mentioned as 15.09.1960. He further argued that even in the seniority lists issued from time to time, the date of appointment of the respondent has been shown as 01.03.1990 and date of retirement as 30.09.2028 and it continues to be so even in the tentative seniority list issued by the petitioners in the year 2020. Mr. Pant laid stress that it was only in the year 2015 that the controversy was raised with regard to the date of birth of the respondent, as the same was wrongly recorded as 15.09.1960 and in this regard, the respondent made a representation before the conc
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rules invoked by the petitioners regarding the date of birth were not applicable, as the petitioners' own records acknowledged the correct....
The date of birth declared by the government servant and accepted by the appointing authority is unalterable except in the case of a clerical error, and there are limitations for seeking rectificatio....
Applications for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service cannot be entertained, and finality and certainty in government service matters are crucial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the date of birth as accepted by the Central Government shall not be subject to alteration, except in cases of bonafide clerical mistake. The ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the date of birth as accepted by the Central Government shall not be subject to alteration, except in case of a bonafide clerical mistake, and....
No limitation bars correction of clerical date of birth errors in service records when supported by authentic school documents and board rectification.
Applications for change of date of birth in service records must comply with procedural rules and be made within five years of joining service; failure to do so results in denial.
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
