Applications for correction of date of birth in service records can be rejected on grounds of delay and lack of irrefutable proof, especially when made at the fag-end of service.

ORDER :

1] Heard.

2] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“a. Appropriate Writ, Direction or order in the nature of mandamus or other, the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 be quashed.

b. Appropriate Writ, Direction or order in the nature of mandamus or other, all the proceedings of the Respondents on the subject matter negating the plea for correction of Petitioner's date of birth in the service record be quashed.

c. Appropriate Writ, Direction or order in the nature of mandamus or other, the Respondents be directed to correct the Petitioner's date of Birth in the service record by entering his correct date of Birth, which is 09.12.1964.

d. Appropriate Writ, Direction or order in the nature of mandamus or other, the Respondents be directed to confer all the service benefit including the superannuation, to the Petitioner by acting and treating his actual date of birth to be "09.12.1964?.

e. Costs of this Petition be awarded.

f. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit, be awarded to the Petitioner.”

3] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2023, whereby it has been conveyed to the petitioner that his date of birth shall be treated as 21.05.1962. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Time Pay Labour on 21.05.1990 in the college of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Mhow (Respondent No.2). On 12.09.1997, an order was passed that the date of birth mentioned by the petitioner in his service record as 02.09.1967, has not been supported by any document, and thus, on the basis of the certificate given by the Doctor of the College, as on 24.05.1990 his age is determined as 28 years and corresponding date of birth is held to be 21.05.1962, and thus, it was directed that in place of 02.09.1967, the date of birth of the petitioner be mentioned as 21.05.1962 in the official records. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner in the year 2000, the application regarding which has not been filed on record. However, on the said application, the order was passed on 09.10.2001 (Annexure P/6) holding that since his age has already been determined vide order dated 12.09.1997, hence, his date of birth cannot be changed any further.

4] The Petitioner's contention is that his original date of birth is 09.12.1964, which is also reflected in all his documents viz., transfer certificate, mark-sheets, his Aadhar Card as also his Janampatri/Birth Chart, and there was no reason for him not to disclose the aforesaid date of birth in his official records, and thus, it is submitted that the respondents have erred in not correcting the date of birth of the petitioner.

5] A reply to the petition has also been filed.

6] Counsel for the respondents has also drawn the attention of this Court to the undertaking given by the petitioner on 23.05.2000, wherein he has accepted that his date of birth is 21.05.1962 only, which he has accepted. Thus, it is submitted that when the petitioner himself has given an undertaking as aforesaid, no case for interference is made out.

7] Counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the documents filed by the petitioner along with the petition are dubious in nature as it is not clear as to when these documents have been issued to the petitioner, and also that his first objection was filed after seven years of his appointment, and the petition has been filed at the fag end of his services. Counsel has also relied upon certain decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of The General Manager M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines Vs. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.4686 of 2024 dated 02.04.2024 paras 18, 19 & 21 reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 491 and Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited and Ors. Vs. T.P. Nataraja and Ors. passed in Civil Appeal Nos.5720 and 5721 of 2021 dated 21.09.2021 paras 10 & 11. rep