AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.J. Shethna, J.—The appellant petitioner has challenged, in this appeal, the judgment and order dated 10th October, 2005 passed by Miss
R.M. Doshit, J. dismissing his Special Civil Application No. 3573 of 2005 on two grounds that (1) when he applied for correcting his birth-date in
his service record, he had already crossed the age of 50 years, and, therefore, his application could not be considered by the respondent- Board
and (2) when he applied for appointment as per his other birth-date, he was minor i.e. below 18 years.
Learned counsel Shri Mishra for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge was wrong in dismissing his writ petition on
the ground that in 1999, the petitioner had already crossed the age of 50 years, therefore, his application for correction of birth-date in the service
record could not be accepted. He submitted that as per the original service record of the appellant, his birth-date was recorded as 20th May,
1945 in the service record and for the first time, he submitted his application on 6th March, 1992 for correcting his age. At that time, he was 47
plus. If this was the only ground for rejection of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, then we would have considered the case of the
appellant "" petitioner. However, as stated earlier, one more ground for dismissal assigned by the learned Single Judge was that as per his another
birth-date i.e. 15th October, 1948, which he claimed to be the correct one as per the School leaving Certificate, he was below 18 years of age for
the post of Helper in 1966. No minor can be appointed in any Government post or semi-Government body who has not completed the age of 18
years. Therefore, there is no question of interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, learned counsel Shri Mishra for
the appellant vehemently submitted that the appellant may not be 18 years old when he applied on 1st October, 1966 but when he was appointed
on 11th February, 1967, he had already completed the age of 18 years as per his correct birth-date i.e. 15th October, 1948. There is no force in
this submission. If the appellant had mentioned 15th October, 1948 as his birth-date in his application form dated 1st October, 1966, then
straightaway, his application would have been rejected as he was minor at that time and he would not have been called for the interview and
selected. It appears that for getting employment, he has shown his birth-date as 20th May, 1945 and having obtained the job, at the time of
retirement, he applied for correcting his birth-date on the duplicate School Leaving Certificate. When his application was rejected by the
respondent Board, then he approached this court just few months before his retirement from service i.e. in March, 2005 by way of writ petition,
when he was about to retire in October, 2005.
Before parting, we may also state that as per the case of the appellant himself, for the first time he made the representation to the respondent
Board for correcting his birth-date on 6th March, 1992 (Annexure ''A'' to the main writ petition). When he was informed in 1999 that his
application for correcting the birth-date cannot be accepted, then again he made a representation dated 29th December, 1999 to the respondent
Board (Annexure ''B''). On 11th August, 2001, he had made another representation for correcting his birth-date (Annexure ''E''). By a letter dated
5th July, 2002, the appellant was once again informed that his case cannot be considered in view of the revised Rule No. 18 (Annexure ''D''). Even
thereafter, he did not do anything and at the verge of his retirement in 2005, once again he submitted another application dated 11th February,
2005 for correcting his birth-date which was rejected on 21st February, 2005 (Annexure ''G'') wherein it is stated that he had even accepted 90%
C.P.F. final settlement before one year of his retirement from the Board and that he himself has signed the Service Book and stated in it that his
birth- date was 20th May, 1945.
From the above, it is clear that at the time of getting job, he himself had mentioned his birth-date as 20th May, 1945 and in the last year of his
retirement i.e. in 2005 prior to it he had already accepted 90% C.P.F. final settlement which was to be given before one year of his retirement
from the Board and thereafter, in the month of March, 2005, he has approached this court by way of writ petition. Thus, it is clear that for the first
time in 1992, he had applied for correcting his birth- date and thereafter did not do anything for a long period of more than 7 years. When in 1999,
he was told that his application cannot be accepted then, again for a period of 3 years, he did not do anything. When in 2002, he was told that his
application cannot be accepted then once again he did not do anything for a period of three years and after accepting 90% C.P.F. final settlement
in the last year of his retirement i.e. in 2005, and when his application was rejected, then, for the first time, he approached this court by way of writ
petition. Thus, his petition was also suffering from the vice of gross delay and laches. Repeated representations do not furnish a fresh cause of
action as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Miss Ajay Walia, Thus, on this ground also, his
appeal and petition were required to be dismissed.
In the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. S.C. Chadha, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court had held that before issuing any direction to the
authority for correcting the birth-date, the court or the Tribunal has to be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned
and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or
order. At the cost of repetition, we may state that for getting the job, he had mentioned his birth date as 20th May, 1945. If he was actually born
on 15th October, 1948, then when he applied on 1st October, 1966 lawfully, he was not eligible because he was below 18. Thus, a person who
got the benefit of his own wrong is not entitled to double benefits of retirement in service.
In view of the above discussion, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.