IMPORTANT POINT
Service Law - Once candidate took advantage representing his date of birth in the application form for selection of post, which influenced the mind of selection committee, the petitioner would be estopped by her/his own conduct to request for change in date of birth.

M. M. Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 12.5.2002 passed by this Court on the administrative side declining the request made by the petitioner for effecting the change in her date of birth. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner is presently serving as Civil Judge (Jr. Division), ambala and she has given her date of birth as 26.1.1971 and its change has been sought to 9.1.1972. The petitioner has principally placed reliance on a notification dated 13.8.2001 (Annexure P.3) which is issued by respondent no.3- State of Haryana granting permission to all its employees to file application for correction of his/her date of birth within a period of two years of his entry into government service. The afore-mentioned notification has been issued by amending the Punjab Financial Rules, Volume 1 (as applicable to Haryana ). It is further appropriate to mention that it is entirely left to the discretion of the sanctioning authority to refuse or to accept such an application.

2. It further stipulates that no alteration would be allowed unless it has been satisfactorily proved that the date of birth as originally given by an employee was the result of a bona fide mistake and that such an employee has derived no unfair advantage therefrom.

3. On the basis of the afore-mentioned notification, the petitioner is stated to have filed an application for correction of her date of birth on 12.4.2002 (Annexure P.2 ). The applicant disclosed the details of birth of her two sisters and a brother borne out of the same parentage. The matriculation certificate of her eldest sister Jasbir Kaur showing her date of birth as 15.6.1960 ( Annexure P.4), the second sister Ms. Kesar Pal kaur showing her date of birth as 24.10.1965 alongwith their birth certificates have been placed on record as Annexures P.4, P.5 and P.5a ). The matriculation certificate of her elder brother Gurmeet Singh showing his date of birth as 26.12.1969 alongwith birth certificate have also been attached as Annexures P.6 and P.6a ). The petitioner has also attached her own matriculation certificate showing that she was born on 26.1.1971 and she passed the matriculation examination in March, 1986 ( Annexure P.7) It is claimed that all the formalities required for correction of date of birth as stipulated by the notification dated 13.8.2001 ( annexure P.3) have been complied with yet her application was rejected by the High Court on the administrative side on 21.5.2002 (Annexure P.8 ).

4. The petitioner has also placed reliance on a certificate dated 5.10.1983 issued by the chief Registrar (Death and Births) Punjab, Chandigarh showing that a female child was born on 9.1.1972 and was registered with them on on 11.1.1972. The name of the father has been entered as Gurdial Singh of Mohalla Jattan Rajpura.

5. In his affidavit filed by way of reply, respondent no.2 has taken the stand that on the basis of the information provided by Shankar Kaur the birth certificate has already been issued. A reference to the afore-mentioned certificate has been made in the preceding para which has been placed on record Annexure P.1. The affidavit further states that as per information recorded in Colume No.10 of entry 10 dated 11.1.1972 the said child is stated to be the third child of Guirdial Singh son of Hazura Singh. A copy of the Births register showing that entry has been placed on record as Annexure r/1.

6. The High Court- respondent no.1 in its written statement has pointed out that the petitioner joined the service on 20.5.2000 at Ambala City and she had filed an application for change of her date of birth on 12.4.2002, which was within the stipulated period of two years. However, it has been pointed out that the application was rejected on the administrative side with the categorical finding by the High Court that the officer had deliberately omitted to annex her matriculation certificate alongwith her application.