HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.5047 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.08.2011 **** Surjit Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. MK Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 13.04.2009 (Annexure P7) passed by the District Education Officer (Elementary), Tarn Taran whereby his request for change of his date of birth has been turned down on the plea that he applied for it after expiry of two years of the joining of Government service. (2). The undisputed facts are that the petitioner joined as an Elementary Teacher on 12.01.1990 and he was promoted as Centre Head Teacher in due course of time. The date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in his Service Book is 04.02.1951 which is based upon his CWP No.5047 of 2009.doc - 2 – Matriculation certificate. The petitioner claims to have come to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the school and as per the Birth Certificate obtained by him from the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Tarn Taran, his correct date of birth was 28.03.1952. The petitioner applied on 20.10.2004 (Annexure P1) for the correction of date of his birth. He did not receive any reply from the District Education Officer (Elementary), Amritsar for a sufficient long period prompting him to approach the Punjab School Education Board who are said to have corrected his date of birth in the Matriculation certificate from 04.02.1951 to 28.03.1952. The petitioner thereafter made another representation on 04.03.2009 (Annexure P5) along with ‘corrected’ Matriculation certificate but finding no response to his request that he has approached this Court. (3). The respondents vide order dated 30.03.2009 directed not to retire petitioner from service till some decision on the pending representation was taken. (4). Pursuant to those directions that the respondents have passed the order dated 13.04.2009 (Annexure P7) which has been impugned by amending the writ petition. CWP No.5047 of 2009.doc - 3 – (5). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit explaining that as per Note-III to Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol-I Part-I (in short, ‘the Rules’), the petitioner could request for change of his date of birth within a period two years after joining the Government service. The petitioner joined the service on 12.01.1990 and he applied for correction in date of birth for the first time in the year 2004 i.e. after a period of 14 years hence his claim cannot be entertained. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. (7). In my considered view the claim put forth by the petitioner is wholly frivolous and his request for change of date of his birth has been rightly rejected. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that some employees like the petitioner nearing retirement suddenly trace out the ‘old’ and ‘authenticated’ record of their birth with a motive to continue in service beyond the prescribed age of retirement. The present case is no exception. The explanation given by the petitioner as to how he came to know about the ‘correct’ date of his birth is so vague and evasive that it inspires no CWP No.5047 of 2009.doc - 4 – confidence. The manner in which the authorities in the Punjab School Education Board have changed the date of birth of the petitioner in his Matriculation certificate after decades though is not under judicial scrutiny but such like action at least prima facie leads to an inference that the date of birth has been changed for extraneous reasons. In any case the so-called correction in the Matriculation certificate by the Board did not give any cause of action to the petitioner to apply for the change of date of birth recorded in the Service Book, as ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh v. Megh Raj Garg and another, 2010(3) RSJ 449. (8). The petitioner joined the Government service on the basis of his date of birth mentioned in the original Matriculation certificate. If there was a mistake in that date, he ought to have get it corrected within the stipulated period as the Statutory Rules do not permit him to seek such correction after expiry of two years from the date of joining of service. Note-III to Rule 2.5 of the Rules which prescribes the aforesaid period of limitation reads as follows:- “Note 3 – The date of birth given by an employee in his application form, submitted to a recruiting CWP No.5047 of 2009.doc - 5 – agency, viz, the Punjab Public Service Commission or the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board or the Departmental Selection Committee as the case may be, shall be treated as final and no change in it shall be allowed after entry into Government service. Paragraph 1.: In regard to the date of birth, a declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government service shall, as against the Government employee in question, be deemed to be conclusive. The employee already in the service of the Government of Punjab on the date of coming into force of the Punjab Civil Services [First Amendment] Rules, Volume I, Part I, 1994, may apply for the change of date of birth within a period of two years from the coming into force of these rules on the basis of confirmatory documentary evidence such as Matriculation Certificate or Municipal Birth Certificate etc. No request for the change of date of birth shall be entertained after the expiry of the said period of two years. The Government however, reserves the right to make a correction in the recorded age of a Government employee at any time against the interests of the Government employees when it is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book or in the History of service of a Gazetted Government employee is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded with CWP No.5047 of 2009.doc - 6 – the object that the Government employee may derive some unfair advantage therefrom”. (Emphasis applied) (9). The tendency of the Government employees applying for change of date of birth nearing retirement has been curbed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in more than one decisions, a brief reference to which is briefly noticed hereinebelow:- In Union of India v Harnam Singh [1993] 2 SCC, 162, the Supreme Court ruled that description of five years period in Note 5 of FR 56, for those who are already in government service prior to 1979 to seek correction in the date of birth, was fair and reasonable. The claim of the employee was turned down in view of unexplained and inordinate delay; In State of T.N. V T.V.Venugopalan [1994] 6 SCC, 302, it was held that once the date of birth has been recorded while entering into service and is duly counter-signed by the government servant, ordinarily he should not be permitted to change such entry; In Union of India v Kantilal Hematram Pandya [1995] 3 SCC, 17, the Supreme Court held that where there is unexplained and inordinate delay in seeking correction in the date of birth, the judicial interference should be made sparingly and with circumspection; In Burn Standard Co. Ltd. V Dinabandhu Majumdar [1995] 4 SCC, 172, it was held that where an CWP No.5047 of 2009.doc - 7 – employee of the Government or its instrumentality voluntarily makes a declaration of his date of birth at the time of entry into service and when such date of birth is duly authenticated by him, the High Court should not ordinarily, in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ petition filed by such an employee seeking correction of his date of birth; In Chief Medical Officer v Khadeer Khadri [1995] 2 SCC, 82 it was held that where an employee seeks correction in date of birth beyond the statutory time limit, prescribed under the Rules, his application is liable to be rejected; In Board of Secondary Education of Assam v Mohd. Sarifuz Zaman [2003] 12 SCC, 408 the prescription of three years' period under Regulation 8 of the Service Regulations for applying to seek correction in the date of birth was upheld being reasonable. It was further held that if an employee seeks correction of the date of birth after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the Rules, his claim is liable to be rejected on both counts as the delay defeats discretion and loss of limitation destroys the remedy itself; In State of Punjab v S.C.Chadha [2004] 3 SCC, 394 a direction issued by this Court regarding correction in date of birth was set aside by the Apex Court, holding as follows:- “Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date CWP No.5047 of 2009.doc - 8 – of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed 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 to his date of birth, in his service book”. (10). For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. 25.08.2011 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) Judge