HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISQARH : BILA$PUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM : HON’BLE 5HRI H.L. DATTU, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI V.K. $HRIVA5TAVA, J" Wri'r Pefi'l'ion No.2450 of 2001 PETITIONER Safya Narayan Dubey S/o Rajnafh Dubey, aged 50 year‘s, Range Assis’ranf (Depufy Qanger‘), Koylibeda, An’ragar‘h Range, disfr’ic‘r - Basfar (C6) 1 , Versus RESPOND§NT$ 1‘ 5+a1'e’ of Chha‘rfisgarh fhr’ough The Thé‘ foliowing om! order of The Couri- was passed by Vijay Kumar shrivasfava, J'. 2) Peiii’ioner‘ eniered info service of ihe Sfai'e Gavernmen’r. Afier joining The service, his Service book was‘prepar‘ed by fhe depar'i'meni and his daie of biri’h was recorded iherein. In ihe year 1987 when fhe seniori‘iy lisi of fores’rer was pubiished, he came io know i‘ha‘i hisrdm‘e Secrefary, Fores’r Deparh’nenf, Man‘l'micyu, DK Bhawan, Raipur (C0) 2, Chief Conserva’ror of Fores’r (Adminisfmi'ion), Manfmiaya, DK Bhawan, Raipur' (C6) 3. Divisional fares? Officer- (General Division), Bhanupm‘iappur, disfric‘i' — Basiar (CG) 4. STa‘ie Adminis‘imi‘ive Tribunal ihr‘ough ifs Regis‘i‘rar, Raipur (CG) Presenf : Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel for The pefifioner. Shri Sumesh Bajqj, Governmenf Advoca’re for ihe Sfui'e. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9‘“ March, 2007) {a of birfh has been fncor‘r’ecfly recorded as 01.11.1941 in his Service boakA Therefore, he made an applica’rion dafed 01.09.1988 far correcfian af fhe dafe of bim‘h. According To fhe pefifioner, his dafe of birfh is 15.07.1944, as recorded in his High School Examina‘l‘ion Cem‘ificafe 1961. S‘ruie Gavemmenf vide iefi'er' daied 28.04.1993 refused 1'0 correc’i ihe dafe of bim‘h in service book. Feeling aggrieved, pe’ri‘i‘ioner fiied an appiica‘iion before 'i'he Madhya Pradesh Sfaie Adminisfrafive Tribunai, Jabaipur (for short "Thie Tribunal"). The Tribunai vide order dai‘ed 29.082000 passed in OA No.2527/1994 dismissed ‘ihe pefifion. Hence +his pefifion under arficie 226/227 of ’rhe Consfifui‘ion. 3) Learned counsel for The pe’ritioner confended Tho? High Schooi oer’rifico‘ie issued by fhe Board conioins his dafe of bir‘i‘h and fill canceiiai‘ion of The enfr‘y in The cerfifica‘re, if is To be aocep‘fed as True. On fhe oiher hand, iearned counsel for The Sfa‘re confended Thai- Service book has been prepared in fhe presence and knowledge of ‘ihe pe‘li‘lioner. Dafe of birfh has been recorded on The basis of informa’rion and documenf furnished by pe‘lh‘ioner himself and 'l'he em‘ries regarding dafe of bir'rh have been verified by The Gozef‘l‘ed x Officer. Therefore, fhe da'l-e of bir’rh recorded in the service book was nof permissible To be correc‘l‘ed excep'r in case of clerical error. 4) The order passed by the Sfai‘e 6overnmenf dafed 28.04.1993 is reproduced below :- wwwwfamn enfcTv/w—s/n /93/1o—1 «my; we 28.04.93 # ()A gm? 133?: a? imam. H. 1%.. mun?! W F 5ft alwgé, Uq a—«r am a?r @‘cn W 1§ immwli‘gaml éw‘ :— 3mm 11a ww /:Ea1T./t5~3/o1 am'E 11.1.91. $4, a, u Wa$cwmaqammaiw1t Ww%m€%mw.w.gé,mm gm $ @711 gm IT 31% W1 1.12.1941 if 131% WH/W&WWH%§WWWI1WW€I 3Q“ mg 1mm $1 1a $111191 Ha 11m m 11w E1161 §1 “‘1" ma :— mam 116m: Kiré’r/— 31a? ma. m&w WEE ‘fhwm ga?! / 26793 5) The impugned order passed by The Tribunal confains 'rhe faHowing imporfam‘ facfs which are ax’rmcfed be§ow for proper apprecim‘ion of fhe maf‘rer : "A perusal of copy of The service book, which has been filed s Annexure R—12 shows 'rhm‘ applican'r's da’re of bir’rh has been recorded as 15' December, 1941 bo'rh in words and figures. This en‘rry in The service book was seen on Three occasions by ’rhe applicant T'ne lasf one being on 12.2.1980. Thus, 'l'he applicani‘ canno'i' confend fha'i‘ he came 1'0 know abou‘l' the da’re of birfh recorded in The records as 1.12.1941 in The year 1987. The cppli-can‘i having himself signed The relevanT page of The service book on which The daTe of birTh has been recorded cannoT be now heard To l‘say Tha’r his daTe of birTh'has been wrongly recorded. An enTry once made in The service book can be changed only if There is a clerical error as per The Rules 84 conTained in MP Financial Code. There is no clericallxerror in recording of The daTe of birTh.” 1‘ L! a w} u: é) Undispufediy, 1'he da’re of bim‘h has been recorded in The Service back in accordance wifh rules and fhe pe’ri‘rioner' affer going through Those enTries had singed fhe relevanf page a‘r fhe Tima of The said enfry. If is also evidenf Thaf up fo 12.02.1980, pefifioner on \‘hree occasions had seen ’rhe said em‘r'y. The dafe of bir‘rh in Service book has been recorded as G1.12.1941. Therefore, he can no’r claim fhaf he for lhe firsl" lime came To know fhe incorrec’r eniry in 1987 when senioriiy lisi was published. 7) The service record and ifs en‘lry can no? be brushed aside merely on The submission of subsequen'r documen’rs and?objec’rions. Clause 84 of Madhya Pradesh Financial code 1984 reads as below: HW$smiHW€mmmqsw Wow Woo who on We? $ W m Gm info 3% Gigi an; 3i he Waf$waimiwlhieiang€i and 3T do #meiw elilWa gm m info WW6. aiTfc’i $ weilomwisnwmaml 3% We an? lhfei son a 3i oi wmwhrféieo—semmmi @En WT. eon W 3mm 31:21 WeaiWWainé‘anws‘ Gmi 6711? W Gran info 312m hem 35$aia1fahr§aa$mfrnifeisfW h W W1 go“ me Qw an anon $n§ mWo‘Wwe manifei well 3min? ail—x! oaa W gel a? Wianoi—emé‘a’rianwriiiml’ril’r union $ m W $§ View? WH’é’rWiaTaml" ‘ 5 7’1 L 8) From bare reading of The abeve Rule i’r is eviden‘r fha? The dafe 0f birTh is recorded an iha basis of $ocumen‘rs rehed on by the §overnmen+ servan’r and Those erifr'ies excepi" clerical errors are no? subjem‘ 1'0 correcfion, even o‘iher‘wise in view m‘ all The fads narra‘l’ed abave merely on “the basis of school ceriificai‘e filed affer lapse of lcmg, unexplained period, The enfries in ’rhe service book can noi‘ be held To be incorrec’i‘. 9) The impugned order passed by fhe Tribunal does no? suffer from any illegalii‘y or irregulari‘l'y which may call for inferference by sfepping in ar’ricle 226/227 of The Qonslitu‘lionlby f'n/is Court ‘Pe‘rii’ion dismissed. No cos‘rs. i Vijay Kumar Shrivastava‘ Judge 7 \,v.J \ Sd/- 7 l