ORDER 1. Facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner was born in former princely State of Travancore t now forming part of Kerala State). After graduation from Madras University in 1946 he was appointed as Income Tax Officer in princely State of Bastar on 11-3-47. In June 48 he was transferred to Surguja State. When these estates were merged in Union in 1949 the services of petitioner were also absorbed and by a Notification issued on 10-11-49 petitioner was appointed as Income Tax Officer Class 11. grade III, in the Income Tax Department of the Govt. of India. In 1950 the petitioner was posted at Jabalpur in State of Madhya Pradesh. While he was posted there the Income Tax Commissioner Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal sent two letters on 27th June and 7th Oct. 50 requiring the petitioner to furnish details regarding date of birth. educational qualification, departmental examination, last post held etc, in the letter dated 27th June it was mentioned that information is needed urgently where as in letter dated 7th Oct. petitioner was required to furnish it within two days. It is averred in writ petition that as the papers were not available with petitioner but the matter was urgent he furnished the information as required to the best of his memory. And in the proforma supplied to him the date of birth was disclosed as 22nd March 1103 (Malayalam era) corresponding to 9th Nov. 1926 of Christian era. The disclosure so made by petitioner was entered in his service record. Later on petitioner is stated to have visited his home town where he came across his school leaving certificate and then he came to know that disclosure made by him in pro forma was incorrect because his date of birth recorded in the certificate was 22nd August 1103 and not 22nd March 1103. Her thereafter checked the almanac in Malyalam and found that equivalent of 22nd August 1103 (Malyalam era) in Christian era was 4th April 1928. In this respect he obtained two certificates, also, from his senior officers. D.it as the proof was not conclusive he did not make any representation. In 1975 petitioner went to Trivendrum (Kerala) and he obtained certificate from Librarian, Trivendrum Public Library, which is a Government Library that 22nd March 1103 was equivalent to 8th Nov. 27 and thereafter he made a representation to Govt. D.it as the proof was not conclusive he did not make any representation. In 1975 petitioner went to Trivendrum (Kerala) and he obtained certificate from Librarian, Trivendrum Public Library, which is a Government Library that 22nd March 1103 was equivalent to 8th Nov. 27 and thereafter he made a representation to Govt. of India for altering his date of birth in the service record as the mistake was clerical in nature. On 23/26th Nov. 77 this representation was rejected as the mistake was not clerical because the entry was made in service record due to disclosure made by petitioner himself. And such errors were not liable to he corrected in Rule 79 of General Financial Rules. It is the validity of this order which is under challenge. 2. Rule 79 reads as under : "79. Date of Birth :- (1) Every person newly appointed to a service or a post under Government shall at the time of the appointment declare the date of his birth by the Christian era with as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence such as a Matriculation certificate, Municipal birth certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known an approximate date shall be given. (2) The actual date or the assumed date determined under rule 80 shall be recorded in the history of service, service book, or any other record, that may he kept in respect of the Government servant's service under Government and. once recorded it cannot he altered except in the case of a clerical error, without the previous orders of a Department of the Central Government or an Administrator." Note :- Head of Departments are authorised to exercise the powers delegated to a Department of the Central Govt. and an Administrator under rule 79 in the cases of non-gazetted Govt. servants under their control. Government of India's decision :- Requests for alteration of date of birth shall not be entertained after the preparation of the service books of the Government servants concerned and in any event not later than the completion of the probation period or declaration of quasi-permanency which ever is earlier. The date of birth may however, be altered at a later stage by a competent authority if that authority is satisfied that a bona fide clerical mistake has been committed and that it should he rectified. The date of birth may however, be altered at a later stage by a competent authority if that authority is satisfied that a bona fide clerical mistake has been committed and that it should he rectified. Efforts should however be made to settle the matter within the period stated above. (Ministry of Home Affairs O. M. No. F.9,11/61 Ests (A) dated the 17th Nov., 1962). (1) If it Govt. servant is unable to state his exact date of birth but can state the year. or year and month of birth, the 1st July or the 16th of the month, respectively shall he treated as the date of his birth. (2) If h, is only able to state his approximate age his date of birth shall be assumed to be the corresponding date after deducting the number of years representing his age from his date of appointment. (3) When a person who first entered Military employ is subsequently employed in a Civil Department, the date of birth for the purpose of the Civil employment shall he the date stated by him at the time of attestation or if at the time of attestation he stated only his age, the date of birth shall be deducted with reference to that age according to sub rule 12) of this rule. Government of India's decision : - Cases in which the date of birth has been deducted from the age at appointment or attestation by any other method need not be reopened." 3. There was some controversy whether this rule applied to petitioner at all as his was case of absorption rather than appointment. It is not necessary, however, to decide it as even assuming that this rule applied the question is what is the scope of the expression 'clerical error'. In Master Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Orissa AIR 1966 S C 1047 it was held (at p. 1049) : "An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing. An error arising out of or occurring from an accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake or omission unintentionally made." 4. Applying this principle to petitioners case it is obvious that the mistake was accidental and unintentionally made. The disclosure regarding year of birth was correct. The mistake occurred in disclosing its equivalent in Christian era. An error arising out of or occurring from an accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake or omission unintentionally made." 4. Applying this principle to petitioners case it is obvious that the mistake was accidental and unintentionally made. The disclosure regarding year of birth was correct. The mistake occurred in disclosing its equivalent in Christian era. So long the disclosure in respect of year was correct the error in equivalent was accidental omission due to non-availability of almanac etc. The petitioner's case therefore was of clerical error. His representation could not be rejected as being outside the scope of clerical error. The ambit of expression 'clerical error' cannot he taken to be so narrow as to exclude all cases except the one committed by office in writing or typing. If the writing has been rendered erroneous due to an information which was incorrect then it did not make any difference that it occurred due to petitioner himself. The nature of error remained the same. The disclosure made by petitioner was incorrect admits of no doubt except of course the year namely 1103. It is also clear that mistake was bona fide. The petitioner did not have his English school leaving certificate with him at the time he was required to supply the information by the Income Tax Commissioner in 1950. From the school leaving certificate it appears the year prevalent in Kerala was Malyalam era and not the Christian era. To find out to what it corresponded one had to look into almanac or the comparative table of Malyalam and the Christian era, which was not available with petitioner in 1950 in Madhya Pradesh. If in these circumstances the petitioner while .giving out his year of birth to be 1103 (Malyalam era) committed an error in disclosing the comparative Christian era he was not debarred from approaching the opposite party for rectifying the same. The mistake was not in the year of birth but its equivalent in Christian year. The school leaving certificate is authentic document. It is considered to be the best proof of date of birth. In refusing to consider the application for correction the opposite party took too technical view. 5. In the circumstances this Writ Petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 23/26th Nov. 77 passed by Government of India is quashed. The school leaving certificate is authentic document. It is considered to be the best proof of date of birth. In refusing to consider the application for correction the opposite party took too technical view. 5. In the circumstances this Writ Petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 23/26th Nov. 77 passed by Government of India is quashed. As the opposite party has not considered the dispute on merits. we direct it to decide the representation again. The petitioner shall he entitled to his costs.