IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. NO. 1676 OF 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 20, 2011 R.K. Jangra …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 22.1.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant while upholding the order dated 8.7.2009 (P- 39) passed by the State of Punjab rejecting his prayer for change of date of birth from 4.1.1952 to 3.1.1953. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner- appellant admittedly entered the service in the Department of Irrigation on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission on 12.1.1980 on the post of Assistant Engineer. At the time of appointment he has given his date of birth to be 4.1.1952, which was duly recorded in his service book. On the ground that his mother was illiterate and given wrong date of birth at the time of L.P.A. No. 1676 of 2010 (O&M) admission in the school and on the basis of a certificate dated 19.8.1981 issued by the Additional Registrar, Births and Deaths, Jalandhar, the petitioner-appellant started pursuing his remedies for correction of his date of birth from 4.1.1952 to 3.1.1953. He made such an application for the first time on 23.11.1982. His claim for change of date of birth remained pending at various levels. Eventually the matter traveled up to Hon’ble the Supreme Court when the petitioner-appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 1615 of 2009 against a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 1333 of 2007, dated 29.1.2007 (P-37). Their lordships’ of Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.3.2009 directed the competent authority-Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Punjab, to consider the representation filed by the petitioner- appellant on 8.5.1987 by keeping in view the documents and material produced by him (P-38). After considering the matter afresh and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner- appellant, the competent authority rejected his request vide order dated 8.7.2009 (P-39), which was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 12011 of 2009. 3. The learned Single Judge after noticing the facts in detail came to the conclusion that no interference is called for in the order dated 8.7.2009. The observations made by the learned Single Judge in this regard are discernible from the perusal of paras 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment, which reads thus: “[17]. In my considered view, no interference in the impugned order is called for by this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner while 2 L.P.A. No. 1676 of 2010 (O&M) seeking change of date of his birth in the service record is harping upon two documents. Firstly, he relies upon a birth certificate dated 19.8.1981 [Annexure P-2] issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Jalandhar, according to which a male child, named Janak Raj was born on 3.1.1953 in village Mirpur Jattan and the names of his mother and father were “Parkash” and “Joginder”, respectively. It is the conceded fact that throughout in the school or at Higher Education level, the name of the petitioner was recorded as Raj Kumar Jhangra only and not “Janak Raj”. It may be noticed here that the originally given date of birth of the petitioner is 4.1.1952, whereas the date of birth mentioned in the certificate relied upon by him is 3.1.1953, i.e., reflecting a gap of one year. The birth of a second child within this period may be unusual but not impossible. The said certificate, therefore, can not be relied as a conclusive and impeccable piece of evidence to hold that it pertains to the petitioner only. [18]. The second document relied upon by the petitioner is a report dated 6.11.2007 given by the Deputy Commissioner, Nawanshahr, already reproduced in Para 11 of this order. From a plain reading of the said report it is apparent that the birth certificate, photo copy of which was sent to the Deputy Commissioner for verification, was found to be correct as per the record maintained by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. In other words, the report simply certifies the genuineness of the birth certificate dated 19.8.1981, namely, it was 3 L.P.A. No. 1676 of 2010 (O&M) not a forged or fabricated document. The said report no where suggests that the date of birth mentioned in the subject certificate pertains to the petitioner's birth. [19]. In addition, the respondents have categorically averred that the petitioner was required to seek correction in the date of his birth within two years of his entry into Government service as per unamended Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The petitioner's own case is that he joined the government service on 12.11.1980 and that he applied for change in date of birth on 23.11.1982 [vide Annexure P-2A], i.e., after expiry of the maximum period prescribed under the statutory Rules. Be that as it may, after the amended Rule 2.5 ibid came into force, the State Government gave another opportunity to the serving government employees to seek change in the date of birth, if so required. The petitioner was well within his right to apply for the same. But his application was considered and rejected by the State Government vide order dated 18.12.1995/15.1.1996 [Annexure P-22]. It may be true that the petitioner's request was declined by passing a cryptic order which assigned no reason whatsoever. This could, however, be a valid ground for the petitioner to assail that order before an appropriate Forum within a reasonable period. Once the petitioner's claim was turned down by the Competent Authority, even if erroneously, the subsequent successive representations made by him did not revive his cause of action.” 4 L.P.A. No. 1676 of 2010 (O&M) 4. The learned Single Judge also considered and rejected the prayer made by the petitioner-appellant in the light of various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162; State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302; Union of India v. Kantilal Hematram Pandya, (1995) 3 SCC 17; Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar, (1995) 4 SCC, 172; Chief Medical Officer v. Khadeer Khadri, (1995) 2 SCC 83; Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. Mohd. Sarifuz Zaman, (2003) 12 SCC 408; State of Punjab v. S.C. Chadha, (2004) 3 SCC 394; Desh Raj v. Bodh Raj, (2008) 2 SCC 186; and Mohd. Yunus Khan v. U.P. Power Corporation Limited, (2009) 1 SCC 80. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 22.1.2010. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and perusing the paper book with his able assistance, we are of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We are of the considered view that no change in the date of birth of the petitioner-appellant is permissible in law. In that regard law is well settled as has been rightly referred to and discussed by the learned Single Judge. A similar question arose before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Saroj Bala, (1996) 2 SCC 81. In that case Smt. Saroj Bala had disclosed her date of birth at the time of taking All India Civil Services Examination and she joined Indian Revenue Service in 1972. She then applied for correction of her date of birth to University and Government. Both rejected her request which led her to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, which granted her the relief. In an appeal to Hon’ble the Supreme Court the order 5 L.P.A. No. 1676 of 2010 (O&M) of the Tribunal was set aside. The finding of the Tribunal was also set aside where it was held that her declared date of birth could not be correct because of close proximity of six months of birth of her elder sister. Furthermore, it has come on record that in terms of amended Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, the petitioner- appellant was required to seek correction in the date of birth within two years of his entry into Government service. He joined the Government service on 12.11.1980 and applied for change on 23.11.1982, which is beyond the prescribed period. He also did not avail the second chance at the time of amendment of Rule 2.5, when the State Government gave another opportunity to serving government employees to seek change in the date of birth. Moreover, the petitioner-appellant is estopped from pleading different date of birth as he himself has given the date of birth at the time of joining his duties as Assistant Engineer. If permission to change his date of birth is granted then persons junior to an employee waiting for their turn of promotion are also adversely affected. There is, thus, no merit in the instant appeal warranting its admission and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 20, 2011 JUDGE PKapoor 6