JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan vide order dated May 8, 1991 retired the petitioner Moola Ram from the post of Assistant Accounts Officer with effect from February 28, 1993 on completion of 58 years of age, treating the date of birth of the petitioner Moolaram as Feb. 2, 1935. Prior to passing of the aforesaid order of retirement, the petitioner made a request to the Director Treasury and Accounts to enter in the service records Sept. 3, 1940 as his correct date of birth. The request of the petitioner was turned down vide order dated November 24, 1989. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal bearing No. 12/90 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Jaipur (for short the Tribunal). Learned tribunal vide judgment dated Feb. 2, 1993 allowed the appeal and held that the date of birth Feb. 2, 1935 entered in the High School Certificate of the petitioner was not correct. While setting aside the order dated November 24, 1983 the Tribunal directed the State of Rajasthan to make correction in the service record of the petitioner after incorporating his date of birth as September 3, 1940. In writ petition No. 1252/93 (filed on Feb. 23, 1993) Moola Ram sought to quash the order of retirement dated May 8, 1991 in view of Tribunal's order dated Feb. 2, 1993. Whereas the State of Rajasthan in Writ Petition No. 4079/93 assailed the order dated Feb. 2, 1993 passed by the learned Tribunal. 2. It may be noticed at this juncture that this Court vide interim order dated March 1, 1993 stayed the operation of the order dated May 8, 1991. Consequently the petitioner was allowed to continue in the service till March 31, 1999 when the petitioner got superannuated on the basis of corrected date of birth i.e. Sept. 3, 1940. 3. It is contended by Mr. S.R Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of petitioner Moola Ram that after having studied as a regular student from Class III to X in Colvin High School Sirohi (now called Government Intermediate College Sirohi) the petitioner passed his High School Examination in the year 1956. Before taking admission in the college the petitioner studied in Govt. Middle School where his date of birth was recorded as Sept. 3, 1940 but in the College record his date of birth was wrongly recorded as Feb. 2, 1935. Before taking admission in the college the petitioner studied in Govt. Middle School where his date of birth was recorded as Sept. 3, 1940 but in the College record his date of birth was wrongly recorded as Feb. 2, 1935. The petitioner received his High School Certificate in 1956. In 1958 the petitioner approached Director Education of Rajasthan for making corrections in the date of birth but the Director of Education vide letter dated December 23, 1958 declined to recommend his case for correction of date of birth. The Registrar University of Rajasthan vide letters dated April 29, 1975 and May 19, 1975 informed the petitioner that his request for correction in the date of birth could not be acceded. The Syndicate of the Rajasthan University also declined the request for making correction on June 28/29, 1984 and the petitioner was informed accordingly vide letter dated August 16, 1984. Thereafter the State of Rajasthan vide letter dated November 24, 1989 intimated petitioner that as per the provisions of Rule 8(2) RSR the date of birth entered in the service record could not be changed. The petitioner under these circumstances approached the Tribunal that after appreciating the material on record allowed the appeal. 4. Per contra Mr. M. Rafiq, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently criticised the impugned order of the Tribunal and canvassed that the said order was without jurisdiction. The date of birth entered in the High School Certificate as back as in 1956 could not have been altered by the learned Tribunal.5-6. I have pondered over the rival submissions and perused the record.7. Fact situation that emerges from the material on record may be summarised thus- (i) Petitioner Moola Ram himself filled the application form of High School Examination wherein his date of birth was mentioned as Feb. 2, 1935. The petitioner entered the said date in his service record also. (ii) High School certificate was received by the petitioner in 1956 but he kept mum for two years. It was only in 1958 that he made request to correct his date of birth for the first time. (iii) The petitioner approached from piller to post seeking correction of his date of birth but he could not get success. (ii) High School certificate was received by the petitioner in 1956 but he kept mum for two years. It was only in 1958 that he made request to correct his date of birth for the first time. (iii) The petitioner approached from piller to post seeking correction of his date of birth but he could not get success. The State of Rajasthan vide order dated November 24, 1989 informed the petitioner that in view of Rule 8(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, correction in date of birth entered in the service record was not possible. (iv) The petitioner got retired vide order dated May 8, 1991 on the basis of his date of birth Feb. 2, 1935 w.e.f. Feb. 28, 1993. (v) Learned Tribunal vide its judgment dated Feb. 2, 1993 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order dated November 24, 1989 of the State of Rajasthan. The Tribunal held that the date of birth of petitioner was Sept. 3, 1990. (vi) This Court vide interim order stayed the operation of order dated May 8, 1991. Consequently, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till March 31, 1999 when the petitioner got superannuated on the basis of corrected date of birth i.e. Sept. 3, 1940. 8. In Union of India v. C. Ramaswamy (1997) 4 SCC 647 their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to consider this questions whether the date of birth entered in the service record can be corrected, it was indicated in para 22 thus- "Bona fide clerical error would normally be one where an officer has indicated a particular date of birth in his application form or any other document at the time of his employment but, by mistake or oversight a different date of birth has been recorded. In the present case, the same date of birth which was mentioned by respondent in his application form, was also written in his service record. There is thus no clerical error. It is not possible to accept the contention that production of birth certificate from Sub Registrar's office and horoscope which supports an employee's claim for correction of entry regarding date of birth, should be treated as a bona fide clerical error." 9. There is thus no clerical error. It is not possible to accept the contention that production of birth certificate from Sub Registrar's office and horoscope which supports an employee's claim for correction of entry regarding date of birth, should be treated as a bona fide clerical error." 9. In yet another case 'Commissioner of Police v. Bhagwan Lahane' (1997) 1 SCC 247 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the employee seeking the correction of date of birth must show that the recorded date of birth was made due to negligence of some other person or that the same was an obvious clerical error. Where the employee fails to do so, the relief should not be granted by the Administrative Tribunal.10. In the case on hand as already noticed, the petitioner did not seek correction in his date of birth on the ground that the recorded date of birth was made due to negligence of some other person or that the same was an obvious clerical error. The petitioner sought correction on the basis of entries in the Middle School Register and other documents. Undeniably the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the High School Certificate and in his service record was Feb. 2, 1935 and neither it was recorded due to negligence of some other person nor it was an obvious clerical error. Therefore the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and the Tribunal should have dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate and the service record could not have been corrected casually. In my considered opinion learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the appeal of petitioner Moola Ram.11. For the reasons aforementioned, I dispose of the instant writ petitions in the following terms: (i) impugned order of the learned Tribunal dated Feb. 2, 1993 is set aside and I hold that the date of birth Feb. 2, 1935 of the petitioner Moola Ram entered in the High School Certificate and service : record could not have been corrected on the basis of documents filed by him before the learned Tribunal. (ii) I also hold that the order of State of Rajasthan dated May 8, 1991 retiring the petitioner Moola Ram from the post of Assistant Accounts Officer with effect from Feb. (ii) I also hold that the order of State of Rajasthan dated May 8, 1991 retiring the petitioner Moola Ram from the post of Assistant Accounts Officer with effect from Feb. 28, 1993 on completion of 58 years of age treating his date of birth as Feb. 2, 1935 did not suffer from any illegality. (iii) As the petitioner Moola Ram continued in the service pursuant to the interim order dated March 1, 1993 of this Court, the salary and other benefits which he received from March 1, 1993 till March 31, 1999 shall however not be recovered from him in view of maxim 'Actus Curial nemine facit injuriam'. But the petitioner Moola Ram shall not be entitled to retiral benefits for the period commencing from March 1, 1993 till March 31, 1999. His retiral benefits shall be calculated treating his retirement w.e.f. Feb. 28, 1993 and he shall not be entitled to any interest on the retiral benefits. (v) There shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition Disposed of by setting aside order of Tribunal and upholding petitioners retirement on basis of recorded date of birth-salary for period petitioner remained in service on basis of interim order not to be recovered. *******