IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3212 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.04.2010 Dila Ram …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ... Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Dinesh Thakur vice Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): Heard. 2. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 12.5.2009, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a peon in the office of the Commissioner, Shimla Division, in the year 1973 and was regularized in the year 1978. After that he was promoted to the post of Jamadar and then to the post of Daftri and to the post of Gestetnor Operator. He alleged that when he joined the government service, he produced a certificate from the Gram Panchayat, in which his date of birth was mentioned as 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 20.3.1953 and the said date was entered in his record. He alleged that when he applied for house building loan from the Bank in the year 1999, then he learnt that his date of birth has been changed in the record from 20.3.1953 to 20.3.1950 and when he enquired, he learnt that the said change was ordered as per the order passed on 10.2.1986. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an Original Application before the State Administrative and after the abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. He alleged that he filed a representation for correction of his date of birth and the same was rejected by respondent No. 2 on the ground that his earlier representation was rejected by the Financial Commissioner and as such, the present representation is not maintainable. The petitioner has prayed that his date of birth be changed in the service record and the order of the Divisional Commissioner be quashed and writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 20.3.1950 to 20.3.1953. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has filed a copy of the order passed by the Commissioner, Shimla Division, dated 10.2.1986, in which he observed that the record has been tampered with pertaining to the year of birth of the applicant/petitioner from 1950 to 1953. He observed that alterations have been made by the petitioner himself or at his instance and, therefore, he directed that the date of birth of the petitioner be entered as 20.3.1950. Necessary correction was 3 ordered to be made. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner, who rejected his appeal vide order dated 16.6.1986, as per letter Annexure P-4 dated 12.5.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the writ petition and withdrawn the same and he was allowed to make representation by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.3.2009. After rejection of the representation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 6. It is clear that the petitioner joined the service in the year 1973 and thereafter made a representation in the year 2009. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner after more than about 30 years of his joining service. In case, he wanted to get the entry changed, proper remedy available for him was to file a Civil Suit and the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for making correction in the record maintained by the respondents on the basis of the documents produced by him at the time of joining service. A judgment of this Court in State of H.P. and others Vs. Shiam Lal Sharma, 2008(2) Shim. LC 385, was relied upon by the learned Assistant Advocate General, which was also a judgment given by this Court alongwith another Hon’ble Judge while sitting in a Division Bench. It was clearly held that the correction of the birth entries in the service book cannot be allowed at a belated stage, that is, near the retirement of applicant/petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed at a belated stage. As informed during the course of hearing, the petitioner has already retired from service and, therefore, writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner in view of the 4 facts and circumstances of the case. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of. ( V.K. Ahuja ), April 27, 2010 Judge (BSS) 5