IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3821 of 2009 Bindeshwar Lal . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. J. N. Matin, Adv. For the B.S.E.B Board:- Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Arif Danu Sidalique, Adv. ---------------- 2. 18.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner desires correction of his date of birth from 4.1.1954 to 7.1.1956. He was appointed as an Assistant in the Irrigation Department in 1980. The date of birth entered in his service book was 4.1.1954. It is not his case that the entries in his service book with regard to his details were made without his knowledge. On that date, he was fully aware of his new claimed date of birth 7.1.1956 based on his pre- Board examination certificate now sought to be relied upon. No explanation has been urged by him for the entry made in his service book. It is submitted that the petitioner made an application on 4.5.1990 for correction of his date of birth. Entries with regard to correction of date of birth are required to be made within a maximum 2 period of 10 years under Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules. The question whether the petitioner made an application on 4.5.1990 or not is hardly relevant today if after having made an application he went to sleep till he filed the present writ application in the year 2009. It shall tantamount to an application not made within the time prescribed. No explanation has been given in the writ petition as noticed above with regard to the entries made in the service book at the time of his entering service. That coupled with the unexplained delay on part of the petitioner from 1990 to 2009, 19 long years satisfies the Court that it should not lightly interfere with, issues of date of birth at such a belated stage. Issues of date of birth are in any event disputed questions of fact which cannot be enquired into in a writ application. . The issue has again recently been considered in , (2010) 6 SCC 482 (Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh v. Megh Raj Garg) observing at paragraph 7 as follows :- “7. This Court has time and again cautioned the civil courts and the High Courts against entertaining and accepting the claim made by the employees long after entering into service for correction of the recorded date of birth. In Union of India v. 3 Harnam Singh this Court considered the question whether the employer was justified in declining the respondent's request for correction of the date of birth made after thirty-five years of his induction into the service and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in allowing the original application filed by him. While reversing the order of the Tribunal, this Court observed: (SCC pp. 167-68, para 7) “7. A government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil 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 earlier 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. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of 4 refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied by the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time-limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a government servant can be entertained. A government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire…..” The writ application stands dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)