Shashikala Boyat vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

The present writ appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 12/12/2018 passed in W.P.No. 28338/2018.

Facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was a Government servant and while entering the government service she submitted a Higher Secondary School Examination in which her date of birth was recorded as 10/6/1957. At the fag end of her service career she came up before this Court and a claim was made on the basis of birth certificate as well as a mark sheet issued by C. B. Girl Higher Secondary School, Mhow. The learned Single Judge after taking into account the judgment delivered in the case of Eastern Coalfield Ltd., Vs. Bajrangi Rahidas reported in (2014) 13 SCC 681, has dismissed the Writ Petition.

Undisputed facts of the case reveal that at the time of entering into Government service, mark sheet of higher secondary examination which was issued by the Board was submitted by the petitioner in which date of birth is 10/6/1957. The petitioner has obtained birth certificate on 3/2/1986 and there is another certificate obtained by the petitioner on 18/9/2018. On the basis of aforesaid certificates the petitioner wanted her date of birth to be changed.

This Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a case of clerical error which can be corrected keeping in view the M. P. Financial Code. The petitioner with open eyes has entered date of birth based upon her higher secondary examination as 10/6/1957 and in those circumstances the learned Single Judge in paragraph 7 to 9 has held as under:

The Apex Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Limited v/s Bajrangi Rabidas [(2014) 13 SCC 681] has held that the date of birth mentioned in Matriculation or Higher Secondary certificate has to be accepted as authentic. The Apex court has denied the equitable relief to the petitioner on the ground that he suppressed the Matriculation Certificate in securing the appointment. In the present case also the petitioner used the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate while securing the appointment in the private aided college. Thereafter he suppressed that marksheet when his service was absorbed in the Government department. Para 17 and 18 of the judgment are reproduced below :-

"17. On an apposite reading of the instructions there can be no iota of doubt that the date of birth mentioned in Matriculation or Higher Secondary certificate has to be accepted as authentic. But, a pregnant one, as has been indicated hereinbefore, the case at hand depicts a different picture. The respondent did not produce the Matriculate Certificate, though he had passed the said examination. It is because, we are inclined to think, had he produced the said certificate, he could not have undertaken the examination and consequently could not have been appointed. To secure an appointment, as has been found in the enquiry, he made a statement that he had not obtained the certificate though he had passed the examination and the same was accepted by the Welfare Officer of the then private company.

The question that arises for consideration is that once he had availed the benefit by not stating the correct fact, whether the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be extended to him. The Division Bench has recorded a finding the respondent could not have been allowed to participate in the examination without producing the Matriculation certificate. The said finding is based on an assumption and has been arrived at totally being oblivious of the enquiry report which records the statement of the respondent. In this context, we may profitably reproduce a passage from Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy and others : -

"25. In matters relating to appointment to service various factors are taken into consideration before making a selection or an appointment. One of the relevant circumstances is the age of the person who is sought to be appointed. It may not be possible to conclusively prove that an advantage had been gained by representing a date of birth which is different than that which is later sought to be incorporated. But it will not be unreasonable to presume that when a candidate, at the first instance, communicates a particular date of birth there is obviously his intention that his age calculated on the basis of that date of birth should be taken into consideration by the appointing authority for adjudging his suitability for a responsible office. In fact, where maturity is a relevant factor to access suitability, an older person is ordinarily considered to be more mature and, therefore, more suitable. In such a case, it cannot be said that advantage is not obtained by a person because of an earlier date of birth, if he subsequently claims to be younger in age, after taking that advantage. In such a situation, it would be against public policy to permit such a change to enable longer benefit to the person concerned."

In the present case, the date of birth, which is recorded as 10. 6.1957, in the mark-sheet of High Secondary Examination, is universally accepted as proof of date of birth. The petitioner has obtained the birth certificate in year 3. 2.1986 and another certificate on 18.09.2018. In the entire service career from 1988 till today, she had a number of occasions to inspect her service book, pay-slips and gradation lists in which Deptt., used to disclose the date of birth, but she never objected in respect of entry of the date of birth and now before one year of retirement, she is making representation for correction of the date of birth.

As the respondent has held that that there is no manipulation, correction and over-writing in the service records and the date of birth was rightly recorded on the basis of higher secondary mark-sheet. Now the petitioner has came up with birth certificate and the mark-sheet issued by the middle school, therefore, it has become disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioner's correct date of birth is 10. 6.1957 or 12.06.1960.

The petitioner is required to prove these documents by way of evidence in support of her claim, therefore, the writ petition is not an appropriate remedy to entertain such dispute. Hence, the petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court seeking correction of date of birth.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.