IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2917 of 2008 Date of decision: 07.12.2010. Kishori Lal … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. AG. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that a writ be issued directing the respondents to correct his date of birth in the service record as 20.5.1958 instead of 20.5.1956. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in his Higher Secondary Part-I certificate the date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 20.5.1956, whereas his date of birth is actually 20.5.1958. In this behalf, the petitioner has placed on record his school admission form for entrance in the school, which is dated 28th April, 1964 and in this school admission form his date of birth is entered as 20.5.1958. The petitioner changed school after passing class five and therefore, was granted a school leaving certificate and in this certificate also the date of birth of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? . 2 the petitioner is mentioned as 20.5.1958. In the school record the date of birth of the petitioner was always shown as 20.5.1958, as is apparent even from annexures P-3 and P-4. 3. However, the fact is that in the Higher Secondary Part-I certificate, Annexure PY, the date of birth was shown as 20.5.1956. This certificate was issued in the year 1975 and the petitioner in the year 1977 itself much prior to his joining service filed an application for correction of his date of birth. This application was rejected by the H.P. Board of School Education vide annexure P-7 on the ground that in the admission form the date of birth was shown as 20.5.1956. The petitioner kept representing to the Education Board. In the meantime, the petitioner joined service as Trained Graduate Teacher on adhoc basis in the year 1989. In the service record his date of birth was shown to be 20.5.1956 on the basis of his Higher Secondary Part-I certificate. In the year 1994, the petitioner was regularized and then the service book was prepared and in the service book the petitioner’s date of birth was shown as 20.5.1956 but the words “disputed” are written next to this. 4. Therefore, it is apparent that in the year 1994 itself when the petitioner was regularized he raised a dispute with regard to his date of birth. He also made a representation in this behalf on 16.2.1996. This 3 representation was rejected with the observation that since in his Higher Secondary Part-I certificate the date of birth was mentioned as 20.5.1956 the service record could not be changed. He was directed to get his date of birth first corrected from the Board of School Education and thereafter the department could take any action. 5. The petitioner thereafter filed an Original Application No.3288 of 1999 before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of the original application the petitioner again applied to the Board for correction of his date of birth and vide order dated 14.11.2007 the date of birth of the petitioner in his Higher Secondary Part-I certificate was corrected from 20.5.1956 to 20.5.1958. Thereafter, the petitioner withdrew the Original Application No. 3288 of 1999. He again requested the department to correct the date of birth in the service record but this prayer was rejected on 11.7.2008 on the ground that he had not raised the dispute within two years of entry in the service record. 6. I have given the detailed facts above, which clearly show that the petitioner was disputing his date of birth mentioned in the Higher Secondary Part-I certificate, even prior to his entry in the government service. Immediately, on entry in the government service he had disputed the date of birth shown as 20.5.1956 and had made representations and had, thereafter, filed a case before the Tribunal. This is not a 4 case where we can say that the petitioner was remiss in filing the application. The petitioner from the very beginning has been asking for a change in his date of birth and his prayer could not have been rejected on the ground that he had not applied for change of date of birth within two years from the date of entry in the service. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to correct the date of birth in the service record to 20.5.1958 and the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in this regard. No costs. 7th December, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.