Correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service career requires sufficient evidence and may not be entertained without such evidence.

[Per Hon'ble Rajeev Gupta C.J. (Oral)]

2. Appellant Subhash has filed this appeal under ChapterVll1 Rule 5 of High Court Rules against the impugned judgment dated 18-08-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 1104 of 2007 (S/S).

3. Appellant Subhash filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3105-2007 contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3105-2007 by which the representation of the petitioner for medical examination is rejected by the respondents.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding' the respondent / university get conducted the medical examination of petitioner from the medical officer for determination of exact age of the petitioner, and give the benefit of the age to the petitioner, and the petitioner may be deem to retired in pursuance of medical report.

iv. Pass any other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

v. Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner."

4. The petitioner, thus in substance, was seeking correction of his date of birth as recorded in the service-book.

5. Petitioner Subhash retired form the service of the respondent University on 31-05-2007 after attaining the age of 60 years on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his service-book as 01-06-1947. The petitioner claiming his correct date of birth as 02-07-1952 filed an application on 26-04-2006 for correction of the date of birth in his service-book. The petitioner's application was dismissed by the University Authorities on 30-06-2006.

6. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find favour with the writ Court leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition.

7. Sri Kishore Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the University authorities did not provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner / appellant to establish that his correct date of birth was 02-07-1952. The learned counsel further submitted that the University Authorities ought to have directed medical examination of the petitioner for ascertaining his correct age.

S. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the correction in the date of birth was sought at the fag end of the petitioner / appellant's service career and no reliable evidence was adduced before the University in support of the date of birth claimed by the petitioner / appellant.

9. TheApex Court while considering the permissibility of entertaining request for correction of date of birth in the service record at the fag end of the service career, in the case of State of U.P. and another Vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya reported in (2005) 6 SCC 49 observed in para 6:

"6. Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as the date of superannuation or retirement is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice of retirement, and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. But of late a trend can be noticed, that many public servants. on the eve of their retirement waking up from their supine slumber raise a dispute about their service records, by either invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or by filing applications before the Administrative Tribunals concerned, or even filing suits for adjudication as to whether the date of birth recorded is correct or not."

10. The same view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Coal India Ltd. and another Vs. Andhendu Bikas Bhattarcharjee and others reported in (2005) 12 SCC 201, wherein it was observed in para S of the