(1x? T... §j§l$‘\ QTQ‘! ©X n iw in ; w V a . w ga Him?“ §§W %i%m$§ gym gwg. MEHE . . . \\\\\/J W/j \\ . W1 §i“ i . M . {skikE :Ftitf a4. a. wag \NS _ wig . u 33.2% %m$r mqm mm mw wQEm $ @mE4 $$ar Hamwawwag. aam.m&§hmEag‘ ”3%: Eaa .. gmq Mgq; Ewqm wmwg fw i§w “33. w§4 g Ema§nmm. gggoa: $3.3. %.w.§. mm“: 43% way; mmw §§‘ 33 goama@EmEM: E E§ $5: iumazar 40%: I .gm~.wm.:.w wimm awamaa $24 s ”gagmg ,séH gag mEEg. ,\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR . SINGLE BENCH :HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA Writ Petition (s1 No.3727lzoos Jhalaram Kannoje' PETITIONER Versus State of M.P. (now CG.) and others RESPONDENTS AV{ Apnearance: Shri Rakesh Anthony, counsel for the petitioner. r State/respondents. ‘Shri Chand‘resh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 26.03.2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has called in question legality and validly ‘of order dated 27.4.2001 (Annexure A—17) by which petitioner’s representation for change/correction in the date of birth recorded in the service book has been rejected. 2. Facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in this petition are that the petitioner Was initially appointed as Upper Division Teacher in Government School. At the time of entry into service, the petitioner: declared his date of birth as 1.11.1942 in View of date of birth as recorded in the school certificates. Later on, sometimein the year 2001, petitioner came to know that his correct date of birth is 1.11.1945 and not 1.11.1942 as was declared by him While entering into service and making declaration with regard to his date of birth. On x s J. 6Q) the basis of various entries made in different registers and certificates filed along with the petition as Annexuures A—l, A—2, A—3, A-4 85 A—5, petitioner claimed that entries made in the service record pertaining to his date of birth should be altered to 1.11.1945. However, as the respondents rejected his representation vide order dated 27.4.2001, this petition has been filed. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is entitled to continue in service according to his correct dateof birth i.e‘. 1.11.1945. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as in the school reCord/certiiicates, his date of birth was recorded as 1.1 1.1942 while entering into service, he declared his date of birth as 1.1 1.1942, on which basis, the entries were made in the service book. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that this would not create any bar and it is open for the petitioner to pray for correction of date of birth and the respondents were duty bound to make due inquiry with regard to the correct date of birth and suitably amend entries made in the service book. 4. Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that according to the petitioner’s own showing, he voluntarily made ) disclosure with regard to his date of birth while entering into service. It was the declaration made by the petitioner based on educational certificates submitted at the time of initial appointment that entry with regard to his date of birth was made in the service book showing 1.11.1942 as his date of birth. Further submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the declaration made by the petitioner is binding and the petitioner is bound by such declaration and it is not \ open for m to seék 5. i have considered rival and perused the respective parties 'spute that Wm} 6. 1t is not in d1 made 1.1 1 1942 Whit:h 16d to necessa s made way ba Th1s entry w school records, 1mt'1a11y hxs d \ R‘ the has1s o£ wh1ch t Secondary and Umversity 1.11.1942. 7. It appears that subse etc. At the time of en dec1aration with re remained recorded in vario hunself In thxs v1e dec1aration m the year 1966 and rt is after several year near'mg retirement. 1t is not the case rvice book co o’f birth after long years of service change of date of birth. a driferent date f the 1earned counse1 for the contentions o record. 'nto service, petitioner himself ‘ e entering 1 also, petitioner 1n the petition ate of birth was recorded as 1.11.1942, on t of passmg Secondary, Higher he mark shee examination aii contain date of birth as Sing dispute on the schooi 1eve1 ‘ ner stared rai d the same date of birth by the petitioner gard to his date oi birth an as disciosed ‘ us certificates by the when he is at the iag end oi his serVice r that the entries were made in the s have passed, f the petitione him or that o as made y e oi his date of birth With aration which vv out ntrary to deci m e g @5 any notice or knowledge and Without opportunity of hearing. Except in very exceptional cases, which does not exist in the present case, change of date of birth is ordinarily not permissible and the employee is bound by the same. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I doe not find any merit in this petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. ' 9. No order as to costs. ,/ «a 5d/- "Maningra Mohan Shrivastava > f: alludge Praveen frt