ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a mandamus against respondents to consider representations of the petitioner dated 27.12.1992, 02.12.1999 and 05.09.2023 as per Annexures-J, P and Q respectively, wherein petitioner having found that his date of birth is wrongly recorded in the service record as 01.02.1964 instead of 01.12.1964. Aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this captioned writ petition.

2. Facts leading to the case are as under;

The petitioner joined services of respondents –

Corporation on 20.01.1989. The petitioner claims that at the time of entering into service of respondents – Corporation, his date of birth was wrongly entered in the service record as 01.02.1964, which is contrary to the SSLC Marks Cards furnished on the date of entering into service. The petitioner claims that he noticed error in regard to his date of birth in 1992 and therefore, submitted a representation on 27.12.1992.

3. Petitioner’s grievance is that though respondents have acknowledged receipt of representations, no action is taken to rectify date of birth of the petitioner. It is also contended that pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioner, a Committee was constituted and the Committee has examined veracity of actual date of birth and though Committee has submitted a report, respondents have not furnished copy of the report to the petitioner. This petition is filed seeking direction against respondents to consider representations submitted by the petitioner and rectify error that has crept in service record relating to his date of birth.

4. Respondents on receipt of notice have filed statement of objection. The claim made by the petitioner is contested and averments made in the petition are stoutly denied by contesting respondents. The stand taken in the statement of objection is found to be in two folds. Firstly, the respondents have claimed that petitioner has been asserting different date of birth at various stages. Placing reliance on VISA issued by Consultate of United States, Chennai, Japan and Brazil, the respondents have claimed that petitioner has acknowledged and accepted his date of birth as 01.02.1964. While questioning conduct of the petitioner, respondents have also placed reliance on Aadhaar Card, Pan Card and Identity Card. The respondents claimed that petitioner has used date of birth at his convenience and has maintained two sets of documents. In one set of documents i.e., Aadhaar Card, Pan Card and Identity Cards, his date of birth is shown as 01.12.1964, while in another set of documents i.e., Aadhaar Card, Pan Card and Identity Cards submitted to the respondents, his date of birth is shown as 01.02.1964. The respondents have also seriously disputed alleged representation given by the petitioner in 1999. Respondents have claimed that there was no provision to issue an acknowledgment whenever applications were submitted to the Department. It is contended by the contesting respondents that applications were always rooted through Tappal Box.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. Having perused entire materials on record, the short question that needs consideration at the hands of this Court;

As to whether petitioner, who joined services of the respondents – Corporation in the year 1989, can be permitted to seek change of his date of birth in the service record?

7. The respondents – Corporation at their own independent mechanism, provide their employees to seek alteration of date of birth. As per Notification dated 16.12.2014, if an employee has grievance in regard to recording his date of birth in the service record, he is required to make a request in that regard within five years of entering into service. The petitioner, who was appointed in 1989, has knocked doors of this writ Court in 2023 i.e., after lapse of almost 35 years. The petitioner is seeking alteration