Sh. Moti Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 17.08.1969 instead of 02.06.1966 as per the Birth Certificate issued by the Secretary, G.P. Tangnu, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, Annexure P-3 and also as per the entry in the abstract of family register Annexure P-4 in the service record of the respondents No.1 to 3 and also in the matriculation certificate Annexure P-2.”

The petitioner joined the service of the Education Department, in the year 1986. His prayer is that as the date of birth entered in the service record is not in sync with his actual date of birth, therefore, a mandamus be issued to the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 02.06.1966 to 17.08.1969.

On a query put to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner did not approach the Authorities, within the time envisaged in the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971, for carrying out necessary correction in the service record, learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was only in the year 2018 when the petitioner approached the Panchayat concerned to obtain his Birth Certificate that he came to know that there was a discrepancy in the entry of the date of birth in the service record.

Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that no relief, as is being prayed for by the petitioner, can be granted to him.

The petitioner joined the service of the respondents-State in the year 1986. It is not as if the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the service record at the whims of the Officer or Official concerned. The date of birth was recorded on the basis of the documents made available by the petitioner himself to the Department at the time of his engagement. There otherwise appears to be a fallacy in the contention of the petitioner for the reason that in terms of the averments made in the writ petition, which are sworn on affidavit by the petitioner, he was recruited as a Teacher on self help basis on 08.08.1986. If the date of birth of the petitioner actually is 17. 08.1969 then this Court fails to understand as to how he was recruited as a Teacher on self help basis, when the petitioner was not only minor but at the best would have been pursuing his under Graduate studies.

Otherwise also, the petitioner did not approach the Authority within the time as is envisaged in Rule 7.1 Note 1-(d)(1) of Chapter 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971, Vol.I, which reads as under:-

“7.1. Every person newly appointed to a service or a post under Government should at the time at appointment declare the date of his birth by the Christian era with confirmatory evidence as far as possible, confirmatory documentary evidence such as matriculation certificate, municipal birth certificate and so no. If the exact date is not known an approximate date may be given. The actual date or the assumed date determined under note I below should be recorded in the history of service, service book, or any other record that may be kept in respect of the Government servant's service under Government and once recorded, it cannot be altered except in the case of a clerical error, without the previous orders of Government. ...

Note 1- (d) (1) in regard to the date of birth a declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government service, shall as against the Government servant in question, be deemed to be conclusive unless he applies for correction of his age as recorded within 2 years from the date of his entry into Government service Government, however, reserves the right to make a correction in the recorded age of the Government servant at any time against the interest of that Government servant when it is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book or in the history of services of a gazetted Government servant is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded with the object that the Government servant may derive some unfair advantage therefrom.”

In view of the above discussion, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.