@)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5882 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- K.M. RATHOD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 5882 of 1986 NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner No. 1 MR ND GOHIL, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 1-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date of decision: 05/11/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 28.8.1986, by which the request of the petitioner for change of date of his birth in the service records of the Government, was rejected. 2. The petitioner in the present petition has stated that he entered the Government service in the Directorate of Health and Medical Services and Medical Education. The petitioner received promotions and eventually reached the state of Administrative Officer, which is a Class-II post. It is stated that at the time of admission in the primary school, the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 17.1.1929 and that is how his subsequent academic certificates including matriculation certificate also showed the same date of birth of 17.1.1929. Accordingly, the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the Government record is of 17.1.1929, as per which the petitioner would be required to superannuate with effect from 31.1.1987. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that some time in the year 1984, when the petitioner was discussing his family responsibilities with his other brothers, his elder brother pointed out that the petitioner was born in S.Y 1986 on the 7th day of the month of Posh. The petitioner therefore, from the English calendar, found that his correct date of birth was 7.1.1930. He therefore, made an application to the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kheda Nagar Panchayat, for being issued a certificate of birth and accordingly, a certificate came to be issued by the said authority recording the date of birth of the petitioner as 7.1.1930. The petitioner therefore, made an application on 10.1.1985 to the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Gandhinagar, requesting him to change his date of birth from 17.1.1929 as recorded in his service records to that of 7.1.1930, on the basis of this certificate of birth issued by the Sub Registrar of Births and Deaths. 4. The petitioner followed up the said requests through reminders. However, eventually by the impugned order dated 28th August, 1986, the petitioner's request for correction of the date of birth was rejected. The petitioner has therefore, approached this Court against the said decision of the Government refusing to change his date of birth as was recorded in the service book. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner entered in Government service with the date of birth of 17.1.1929, as declared by the petitioner himself. It is also not in dispute that the said date of birth of the petitioner was born out from his academic record and all through out from primary school to matriculate certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 17.1.1929. After entering the Government service for decades together the petitioner did not make any application to the authorities for correction of his date of birth. His normal date of retirement on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service record would have been 31.1.1987. The petitioner for the first time applied to the State Government for change of his date of birth on 10.1.1985. Thus, after having joined the Government service and worked on different positions for decades together, the petitioner had sought change of date of birth at the fag end of his service career and on the even of his retirement. The only ground put forth for approaching the Government at such a belated stage is that in the year 1984, his elder brother during the conversation disclosed to the petitioner that he was not born on 17.1.1929, but was born almost a year later. There is absolutely no material produced on record to suggest that 7.1.1930 was the correct date of birth of the petitioner. It is also not disclosed as to what material was produced before the Sub Registrar, Births and Deaths for obtaining the certificate in which the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 7.1.1930. Admittedly the said certificate was applied for and obtained in the year 1984. It is not a contemporaneous record which would suggest that from the very beginning the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the register of Births and Deaths was of 1930, whereas by mistake his date of birth in the school records was entered as 17.1.1929. In fact the petitioner has been candid enough to suggest that the petitioner upon being told by his elder brother in the year 1984 that he was actually born in the year 1930, approached the Sub Registrar for recording of his date of birth as 7.1.1930. Thus, the certificate produced by him showing date of birth of the petitioner as 7.1.1930 cannot be considered an unimpeachable material in support of his correct date of birth. When the petitioner himself had disclosed his date of birth to be of 17.1.1929 when entered in the service of the Government, which date of birth was supported by the school leaving certificate and matriculation certificate, it was not possible for the petitioner to insist upon change of date of birth decades after his having worked with the Government, at the eve of his retirement, that too on the basis of a certificate obtained by him without disclosing any unimpeachable material to establish unmistakenly that the date of birth of the petitioner was 7.1.1930. 6. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kantilal Hematram Pandya, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1349, the Hon'ble apex Court had turned down the prayer of the Government servant who had for the first time three decades after he had entered into service made an application for correction of his date of birth without adducing any reliable documentary evidence in support of his claim and without in any manner explaining as to why he had taken no action for all those 30 years. 6.1 In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Burn Standard Co.Ltd. and ors. Vs. Dinabandhu Majmudar & anr. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1499, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that High Court should ordinarily not entertain writ petition by Government servant or servants of Government instrumentality for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service with object of continuing in service. 6.2 In yet another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Bhagwan V. Lahane, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1986, when the Government servant sought correction of date of birth, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that his date of birth at the time of entry into service was as shown in his school leaving certificate. Later on producing the birth register and claiming date of birth recorded therein to be correct one the Government servant sought correction of date of birth. The request was turned down observing that the petitioner had not produced any material to prove the date of school leaving certificate to be incorrect or erroneous and therefore, directions for correction of date of birth in the service book ought not to have been granted by the Tribunal. 7. From the above discussion, it can be seen that the petitioner has not made out any case for seeking correction of date of birth and the respondents were perfectly justified in rejecting his request by the impugned order dated 28th August, 1986. The petition is therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (Akil Kureshi, J.) */Mohandas