/-r:' IWa. .3i \// Jhaiaram Kannojs. Versus s : State of Chhattisgarh and others Post for order on 3 o -7-2007 Sd/- satish K. Agnihotri Judge / /." HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition. No. 3809 of 2004 Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. Jhalaram Kannaoje, S/o Shri Kannaoje, aged 59 Occupation - Service presently posted as Upper Division Teacher in Government High School Gidhpuri, Block & Tahsil Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) R/o. Village Gidhpuri, Biock & Tahsil Paiari, District Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Directorate of Pubiic instruction, Raipur (C.G.) District Education Officer, District Raipur (C.G.) Principai, Government High School Gidhpuri, Block & Tahsil Paiari, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE 2. 3. (SB : Hon'bie Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri) Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Deputy Government Advocate Tor the State/ respondents. (Passed on this So^ay of July, 2007) (1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as a Upper Division Teacher in the Government High Schooi 2 (Y. ^ Gidhpuri, Tehsil Palari, District Raipur. The date of birth recorded in his service record was wrongiy entered as 01.11.1942, whereas the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 01.11.1945. According to learned counsel for the petitioner an application for correction of the date of birth was made on 05.03.2001 (Annexure P-1), on the ground, that the village birth register shows the date of birth of' the petitioner on 01.11.1945 (Annexure P-2). The Primary School Certificate and transfer certificate issued by the Principal, Government Primary School, Gidhpuri (Annexure P3) and (Annexure P-4), aiso show the date of birth of the petitioner as on 01.11.1945. The certificate issued by Kotwar on 15.12.1987 (Annexure P-6), also indicates the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.11.1945. The cert:ificate issued by the Administrator, Village Panchayat, Gidhpuri approves the date of birth of the petitioner as 01 .11.1945 (Annexure P-7). Learned counsei fairiy submits that the dhakhii kharij register of the middle school, Gidhpuri (Annexure P-9) and school leaving certificate issued by the middle school, Gidhpuri (Annexure P-10), clearly indicatethe date of birth of the petitioner as on 01.11.1942. The Higher Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal indicates the date of birth ofthe petitioner as 01.11 .1942. (3) Pursuant to the appiication dated 05.03.2001, the Principal by his letter dated 24.06.2001 (Annexure P-14), recommended to the District Education Officer for correction of date of birth on the basis of severai contradictory certiflcates produced by the petitioner but the same was not acted upon. The office of the Accounts OfRcer in the office of the District Education OfRcer, Raipur after having considered all the certificates held that the date of birth i/1 entered in fhe service record as 01.11.1942 was correct and there was no provision to change the date of birth under the provisions of the Fundamentat Rules, 1984 (for short 'the FR, 1984'). (4) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a petition, being W.P. No 2051/2004 for correction of dafe of birth. This Court, vide order dated 16.08.2004 (Annexure P-18), granted liberty to the petitioner to make detailed representation to the concemed authorities and in turn, the concerned authorities were directed to decide the same with reasons, on merit in accordance with law. Pursuant to the representation dated 24.08.2004 (Annexure P-19), the District Education Officer vide order dated 23.09.2004 (Annexure P-20), after having recorded that the date of birth recorded in the sen/ice record on the basis of matric certificate is just and proper and the Rules, 84 and 85 under Financial Code Part I, do not provide for change of date of birth under such facts situation. (5) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order dated 23.09.2004 passed by the District Judge and further seeking a direction to the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in service record as on 01.11.1945 in piace of 01.11.1942. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the above stated submissions and prayed for a writ or direction to quash the impugned order dated 23.09.2004 (Annexure P-20) and for correction of date of birth accordingly. (6) Shri Satish Gupta, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing fbr the State/respondents, per contra, woutd contend that there is no provision for change of date of birth under the FR, 84, •<: i. -.•>/> except in case of inconsistency in the date of birth recorded in the service book and the matriculation certificate or typographicai error. Learned counsei would further submit that the case of the petitioner is that the entry made in the service record is in consonance with the matriculation certificate and other documents wherein different dates of birth are given, were not the basis for recording the date of birth ofthe petitioner in the service book. tt was further contended that in view of the clear statutory provisions and the entry of the date of birth in the service book of the petitioner on the basis of matriculation certificate is final and conclusive the same could not be altered after retirement of the petitioner, who has retired on 31.10.2004. (7) On perusal of the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the date of birth recorded in the service book is in consonance with the dakhil kharij register of the middie schooi (Annexure P-9), school teaving certificate after matriculation (Annexure P-10) and marks-sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal clearly indicate the date of birth of the petitioner as on 01.11.1942. Any entry made prior to matriculation may not be taken as correct as the petitioner subsequently has given the correct date of birth while writing matriculation examination or filling the form for Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination. The date of birth recorded as 01.11.1942 has found place in the service book of the petitioner also, which was filled up on instruction of the petitioner knowing fully well that his date of birth is 01.11.1942. Discovery of certain new documents iike birth register, primary school certificate may not be the relevant documents as the date of birth recorded in the Higher Secondary School Examination certificate as weli as in the .^"\-'"' service book has attained the finality in view ofthe provision of law, i.e. Rules, 84 and 85 under Financial Code Part 1 dealing with the date of birth, which reads as under :- "84. wre-r ^ afsft-i f^dt ^qT 3?araT TR TR g<4<i> •i<tPl^<w arf^r wt »T-Rft ^ wra ara-ft uf'q RrfSr qft urer ws s^ ^ arft^a^ ^ wf vft ^s 1?(fe .^ ^fe .R^ ?t' vt^ ^^^R ^rfgft.^. ^PiRi4d uT'q Rrfe ^rf?f^«^cr, afffe ^ WST f^fStfii't ^r ^f. yltiuii *<'ii Tiif&ij i qfe <<i*d(^<<) uTr*f fi f gm -T ?t dt ppmTT Wf RTRT t IR ^cTTW uTMT -?rf^?! ^qr—ftq^'T.^qT ;|Rd«bl sra.rar 3T"2i aiPT^®uit sii-titbpi<i ^re ^ W9ET ^ ^ ufT^ 's'f^t tii'wR* vf:rf i^Sf ararar lippi ss ^ arapfn piRijd qft ir^ ^rfSr arf^ti qft uiT-ir 'qifei? | ^i (T'% ^fv 'SR arf^g •^1 lr^ ur-ti RriST aiptiti ^>ir ^ Pi<id ^Sf wRlt un^ift aftt ^TO fifftfsStv ^fe <^ tfFrat' ^it tii^*< ^ft yltjuii ^ f^lft ?ft g'iTtuT'T ^ f^ri d^4'<l"rl ^N 'tRrtei.T W"!! .I^f feqT uTT^HI 85- (1) VK Vtf W'tt'fiil ^q«S an-ft qanaf uT-1! RrfST qtTT^ ^ aptmaf ?t l^ ^q5T uF*T q?T g^ arsrar ui-^ w ^ ^f9 vs ^crr 'u<t>tii ^ cft a>*RT: ysm v^pd^ ararar w? ^r *i1<-igciT f^-rrai <arai !ill'tl<tfl^ ^qq? ^t uF^ 1?rf§T tIT'ft ufPI 1 (2) -af^ q? ^q?r wpft pffliTir arr^ qqf ^ ?t «TBT 'iraRff ?t dt ^g^T Pl^f^l ^ f^lf^ ^ •StT^ q^ ydl<ti'i g^t uF*(fiTf3T ^RT ^t uTT •ffq'ift 11 (3) qf^ <SN ^W sffcT "fr 1[IS^ ^^W ^W ^4 ^sr ?^ d^,4<i-ri l^itei ^gr 4 ^syKf ftiw uTrar gt RiRd ^w ^ wa^t ufai fe^r q^t sMt urt w^ asftf—gtfcftwf^ wra <it<dii st | ^^ wmf ^ uref plucft <9fire ^^T ^ srfr^af ^ g^t qsiraf uF*( 1 r art^a -fS i ^^rar OTS$re*)|uncb<u| c^ -Hire 3{Tg gdrt^ ^ aft (T^ ^H arg ^ SIKIR TR wrfippi (z) ^' vu^ ^ ^fti ^ t)«itfl 3TTg a'j.tllRld ^ ufmT 'artt^ r (7) Bare reading of above stated provisions of Rules, 84 and 85 which are ciear and unambiguous provictes that there cannot be alteration of date of birth, if there is no inconsistency or typographic error in the entry ofdate ofbirth made in the service book. (8) The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of (ndia Vs. Hamam Singh , clarify the position of law in case of change of date of birth as under:- "A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request iater on for correcting his age. it is open to a civit servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one eariier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay." (9) The Supreme Court after having considered the eariier decisions in cases of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh (supra), State of T.N. Vs. T.V. Venugopalan , State of Orissa Vs. Ramanath Patnaik , State of U.P. Vs. Gulaichi , and also in the case of The Secretary and Commissioner of Home Department and others Vs. R. Kirubakaran i.n the case of State of Gujarat and others Vs. Va'i Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi obsen/ed as under:- "If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such appli'cation has to be fited, then such apptication must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the tribunai on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the sntries in respect of their dates of birth in the service books". (10) As a result and for the foregoing reasons and in view of the provisions of Rules, 84 and 85 as quoted above there is no case for correction of date of birth. Thus, this petition is dismissed. (11) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shail be no order as to costs. Karuna Sd/- sati^ K. Agmbotn Judge 1. (1993)28cci62 2. (1994)6800302 3. (1397) 5 SCC 181 4. (2003) 6 SCC 483 5. (ig94)Supp.(1)SCC1S5 6. (2006) 6 SCC 537