AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, C.J
Petitioner impugns the order passed by the Public Service Tribunal in her claim petition no. 08 of 2015. A direction is sought to allow the claim
petition in the light of the prayers and to give consequential benefits. The issue involved is correction of date of birth of the petitioner. The
petitioner was given appointment by the third respondent in the year 2003. It is petitioner’s case that she submitted the original school leaving
certificate which was issued by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, mentioning the date of birth as 02.07.1960 along with Class V and other necessary
details. It is her further case that respondents neglected the above school leaving certificate and followed the medical examination report as the
petitioner was got examined through the Chief Medical Officer on 18.12.2003. In the said certificate, petitioner was shown as 48 years, adopting
the way of examination by general appearance, which was mentioned in the medical examination certificate.Â
Accordingly, 18.12.1955 was entered as the date of birth in the service record. According to the petitioner, she made repeated requests regarding
correction in her date of birth, but all requests were in vain. She made application on 22.07.2014. The application has been rejected and hence,
she filed the petition before the Tribunal. Tribunal also dismissed the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court with present writ
petition.
We heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a case where petitioner was a less educated person and from poor background and he
would submit that since there is a school leaving certificate, that shall prevail and petitioner’s date of birth should have been corrected. The
Tribunal should have intervened in the matter. Â
Per contra, it is submitted by Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 that the order of the Tribunal is to be supported.Â
We notice the following paragraphs in the order of the Tribunal:
 “26. In the case in hand, we also summoned original service book of the petitioner and perused it carefully. We find that in the service book, the
date of birth of the petitioner in the relevant column has clearly been mentioned 18.12.1955 and this part of the service book which has been shown as
‘F.R.Form No.13’ has been signed by the petitioner. This has also been signed by the Executive Engineer of Jal Vidyut Utpadan Nigam. It is
therefore, clear that the date of birth mentioned in the service book is 18.12.1955 and signature of the petitioner on it very clearly establishes that this
date of birth has been accepted by the petitioner.
 “27. We have also perused the medical certificate (Annexure: A-6) carefully and we find that as per the statement of the petitioner herself, the
age of the petitioner is 48 years as on 18.12.2003. This medical certificate has also been signed by the petitioner herself. It also goes without saying
that this medical certificate was established by the petitioner to the department.
 “28. The contention of the petitioner that the school leaving certificate which shows her date of birth as 02.07.1960 was submitted to the
department at the time of joining is not supported by any document. We perused the representation of the petitioner dated 22.07.2014 (Annexure: A-1)
and would like to reproduce para 2 and 3 of this representation as below:
 “ekuuh; ifr dh vkdfLed e`R;q ds vk?kkr rFkk NksVs&NksVs cPpksa ds ykyu ikyu dh fpUrk ls xzLr eq> de fâ€kf{kr vkSjr us vkosnu i= Hkjus
okys O;fDr dks vkosnu i= dkWye 11[k esa ß“kSf{kd ;ksX;rk izek.k lfgrÞ iwNus ij dNq ugha crk;k rks eq>s foHkkx us HkrhZ ds fy;s vkoâ€;d
tUe frfFk izek.kd ds :i esa eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh nsgjknwu ds ikl Hkstk tgka eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh usG eneral appearance is about 48 years MkDVjh
izek.k i= esa nâ€kkZ;k ftlds vk/kkj ij foHkkx us fnukad 18-12-2003 ¼esfMdy iznku djus dh frfFk ls½ 18-12-2003&48= 18-12-1995 dh tUefrfFk
esjs lfoZl fjdkMZ esa nâ€kkZ nh
 3- Jheu gky ds o’kkZs esa x`gLFkh ds FkksM+k O;ofLFkr gks tkus ij tc eSaus bl fo’k; ds tkudkj yksxks ls lykg yh rks mUgksaus eq>s
le>k;k fd tc rqeus d{kk 5 rd Ldwy esa fâ€k{kk xzg.k dh gS rFkk d{kk 5 ikl dh gS rks rqEgkjh tUe frfFk dk lgh fjdkMZ Ldwy es a miyC/k gks ldrk gS
rFkk MkDVjh izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij vna kt ls mez dk vkadyu dj tks tUe frfFk fudkyh x;h gS mlesa lq/kkj gsrq izek.k i=ksa ßLdwy yhfoax lVhfZQdVs
rFkk lEc) Ldwy ds iz/kkuk/;kid ls izkIrÞ tUe frfFk izek.k dh izfr;ksa vkidh lsok esa izLrqr dj tUe frfFk ds esa MkDVjh izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij gq;h xyrh
esa lq/kkj dj Ldwy yhfoax lVhZfQdsV ds vuqlkj tUe frfFk 18-12-1955 ds LFkku ij 02-07-1960@nks tqykbZ mUuhl lkS lkB djus ds fy;s izkFkZuk i=
izLrqr d:AÞ Â
 It is very clear from above that the petitioner has herself accepted that since she had no educational qualification, at the time of joining, she
underwent medical examination for determination of her age. The petitioner has also accepted in her representation above that she had decided at the
time of giving representation on 22.07.2014 to submit the school leaving certificate for the correction of date of birth.
 “29. The petitioner has therefore, given representation to correct her date of birth first time on 22.07.2014, nearly one and half year before her
retirement from the service. She had joined the service in the year 2003 and therefore, her first representation to correct the date of birth is after more
than 10 years of service. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the representation has been given by the petitioner on the verge of her retirement and
in the light of settled law as mentioned above, the date of birth cannot be changed at the fag end of the career.â€Â
It may be true that, in a case, where the question to be resolved is whether the date provided in the school leaving certificate is to be relied or the
medical examination report would be preferred, the authorities may appropriately rely on the entry according to the school leaving certificate. But
that is not the issue here. The issue is not whether the school leaving certificate reveals the correct date of birth. The issue is only whether the
petitioner could apply as late as she had done for correction of the date of birth? Accepting the year 1955, as the year of her birth, the petitioner
was due to retire in the year 2015. Though the petitioner does have a case that requests were made, going by the findings of the Tribunal, which we
are inclined to accept, application was made only in the year 2014, which means the application was made only a year before her date of retirement as
per age of superannuation. Though petitioner did have a case that petitioner produced the school leaving certificate even at the stage of her
securing employment, that cannot be accepted in the light of the findings of the Tribunal, which we have referred. This means, the petitioner had
undergone medical examination. This was in connection with determining her date of birth. The date of birth as entered in the record was signed
by the petitioner as acknowledgement thereof. This further means that the petitioner was well aware that her date of birth was being recorded as
being in the year 1955. It is with the aid of the school leaving certificate that petitioner applies for the first time for correction of date of birth in the
year 2014, a year before the date of retirement.
There is a bye law, which is statutory in nature, which forbids entertaining the matter regarding date of birth. No doubt, the learned counsel for
the petitioner would point out that in the bye laws what is contemplated is that the entry relating to date of birth is to be on the basis of the school
leaving certificate. But in a case where the school leaving certificate is not made available, the authority would have no choice except the date
which may be made available on the basis of medical examination. That is what has happened in this case. As admitted, there was a medical
examination on the basis of which date of birth was determined. Sitting in judicial review proceedings, bound by the principle which is settled by a
catena of decisions that the application for correction cannot be entertained at the time of superannuation, we see no reason to interfere. Â
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is an order for directing verification of the school leaving certificate and there is no
dispute that it was found as issued by the authority, but in our view, having regard to the issue which has been answered against the petitioner, the said
aspect fades into insignificance. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
However, we direct that entire amount legally due by way of retiral benefits would be disbursed to the petitioner, if not already released, at the
earliest and preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the third
respondent.    Â