IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP-T No. 2149 of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.05.2011. Joginder Singh …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and another … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Thakur vice Mr. P.P.Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that his date of birth which has been recorded in the service record as 4.2.1951 be corrected as 1.7.1953. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner joined service as Casual Patwari with the State of H.P. in the year 1974. He was regularized in the year 1980. For 26 long years he accepted the fact that his date of birth was correctly recorded as 4.2.1951. It was for the first time in the year 2000 that he made a prayer that his date of birth has been wrongly 2 recorded as 4.2.1951 and his correct date of birth is 1.7.1953. 3. According to the petitioner during the year 2000 he came to know that his correct date of birth is 1.7.1953. His explanation is that he always believed that his date of birth is rightly recorded in the matriculation certificate but in the year 2000 he happened to check his Panchayat record in connection with some other work and during this exercise he found out that his date of birth as recorded in Parivar Register is 01.07.1953 (Annexure A-5 and A-6). The petitioner thereafter made further inquiries with his parents and found his old Horoscope and the petitioner came to know that his actual date of birth is 1.7.1953 and not 4.2.1951. 4. The averments are delightfully vague. There is no explanation as to in what connection he inspected the said record. The document which is relied upon is the copy of the Parivar Register Ext.P-1. This does not relate to the year 1951 because it not only includes the name of the petitioner but includes the name of his wife and two children, youngest of whom was born in the year 1987. The relevant Panchayat record would have been of the year 1953 giving the name of the father of the petitioner and the family 3 members of the petitioner’s father has been conveniently withheld from this Court. 5. This Court in a number of cases has held that application for correction of date of birth must be made within two years of joining service and no person can be permitted to raise this plea at the fag end of his career when he is at the verge of retirement. 6. Rule 7.1 of the H.P. Financial Rules, 1971, Vol.I says that a person, newly appointed to service or post under the Government, should, at the time of appointment, declare the date of his birth by Christian era with confirmatory evidence as far as possible. The rule further says that confirmatory documentary evidence, may comprise of matriculation certificate, municipal birth certificate etc. At the relevant time, procedure for correction of change in date of birth was prescribed in Note 2 below Rule 7.1, which was in the form of annexure. The said note in the form of Annexure said that in regard to the date of birth, a declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government service shall, as against the Government servant in question, be deemed to be conclusive unless he applies for correction of his age, as 4 recorded within 2 years from the date of his entry into government service. This very note has been made part of the main rule itself, w.e.f. 1985, by carrying out amendment in the rule. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner did not apply for correction of his date of birth within two years. This Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Karam Singh CWP No. 185 of 2004, decided on 2.1..2008 had taken the same view and this is the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. and another Vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya (2005) 6 SCC 9. 8. It is thus obvious that there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No costs. 26th May, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.