C.M. NO.7704 OF 2009 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5908 OF 2001 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 15, 2009 Harnam Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab and Haryana High Court and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Rajdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate, for the respondent. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. With the concurrence of the parties, main case is taken up for hearing. The petitioner, who is serving as a Judicial Officer, has filed a writ petition to seek correction of his date of birth from 19.8.1959 as recorded in his service record to 19.8.1960. Claiming that he comes from a rural background and that his parents are illiterate, it is stated that they, due to bonafide mistake, got his date of birth recorded as 19.8.1959, though he was born on 19.8.1960. This C.M. NO.7704 OF 2009 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5908 OF 2001 :{ 2 }: date is recorded as his date of birth in the Birth and Date Register maintained by the Panchayat under the Panchayati Raj Act. On learning about this, he applied to Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education for correction of his date of birth as entered in the school record. The Board did not accept his request, forcing him to file a civil suit in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Sunder Nagar, Himachal Pradesh. This suit has been decreed with a direction to the Board to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the matriculation certificate. Based on this decree, the petitioner applied to the High Court for correcting his date of birth in the service record as 19.8.1960. Copy of the judgment passed by the civil Court is also furnished to the respondent-High Court. This representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected on 11.9.1997. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in April 2001 and to explain the delay in making the approach, he has stated that the order rejecting his representation was misplaced and was not traceable. While admitting the writ petition, the objections filed by the respondents about the delayed approach on his part was left open to be considered at the time of arguments. The objection of maintainability was also raised in the reply. In the reply filed, the respondents would submit that no mandamus would lie to seek correction of date of birth and in support, has placed reliance on the case of Ram Singh Arora Vs. State of Punjab and another, 1989 (1) PLR 124. It is further stated that recording of date of birth of the petitioner is governed by Rule 2.5 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part I, as applicable to the State of Haryana, which says C.M. NO.7704 OF 2009 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5908 OF 2001 :{ 3 }: that the date of birth can not be altered except in cases of clerical error without the previous order of the Government. At the outset, the counsel is asked to make submissions in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner candidly conceded that mandamus generally would not lie to seek correction in the date of birth but would draw distinction of his case on the ground that here he has already got a civil Court decree in his favour and as such, he would be able to maintain the present writ petition, seeking direction to correct his date of birth. There is not only delay on the part of the petitioner to seek correction of his date of birth but there is again a delay on his part to file the present writ petition, even after obtaining a decree from the Civil Court. This delay has remained unexplained. In number of decisions, this Court has declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the approach made is delayed one. Reference here can be made to Parkash Chand Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and another, 2005(4) RSJ 739. The claim for correction of date of birth in this case was rejected as having been filed after a lapse of 14 years, when the claim of the petitioner was first rejected. This Court in Ram Singh Arora's case (supra) has held in clear terms that departmental instructions are not having any statutory force and that no writ of mandamus can be issued for correction of date of birth. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that mandamus to seek C.M. NO.7704 OF 2009 & CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5908 OF 2001 :{ 4 }: correction of date of birth in the service record would not lie. Merely because the date of birth of the petitioner has been corrected in the matriculation certificate, would not give him right to seek correction of his date of birth, which he has given at the time of joining the service but now seeks to challenge after lapse of considerable period. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. October 15, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE