Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 619 (MP)

Rambali Mishra v. State of M. P.

2005-05-16

K.K.LAHOTI

body2005
JUDGMENT Petitioner has sought the following relief in this petition : (1) The respondents be directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 1.1.1955 in place of 1.1.1952 and the respondents be directed to enter the correct date of birth as 1.1.1955 in their educational record and service record of the petitioner. (2) Any other suitable remedy which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit may be issued. The contention of the petitioner is that his correct date of birth is 1.1.1955 while in his service record it has been mentioned as 1.1.1952. The petitioner made a representation in this regard to the respondents which has been rejected mainly on the ground that in the Higher Secondary Examination Certificate the petitioner's date of birth is appearing as 1.1.1952 and this cannot be changed. The respondent No.3 has filed reply in which it has been stated that the statutory limit for correction of date of birth in mark sheet is two months from the date of its issuance. Thereafter it cannot be changed. The State has not filed any reply controverting the contentions of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed other evidence in the case justifying his contention. Annexure A-1 is the mark sheet of seventh class of the year 1966-67 which shows date of birth of the petitioner as 1.1.1955. Similar is the position of mark sheet of class 8th which is a Middle Board, which also shows the same date of birth. After class 8th when the petitioner got transfer certificate from the previous school which is a Government Boys Higher Secondary School No.2, Satna. it is found that due to clerical mistake in the transfer certificate the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 1.1.1952 in numerical while in words it was written as 1.1.1955 and on the basis of the aforesaid clerical mistake his date of birth in the record of High School was written as 1.1.1952. A representation made by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in his service record has not been considered by the respondents. The petitioner was initially appointed in March, 1981 as daily rated employee and was regularized in May, 1990 as L.D.C. when the petitioner joined regular service in May, 1990, he immediately protested to this but no decision has been taken by the respondents in this regard. The petitioner was initially appointed in March, 1981 as daily rated employee and was regularized in May, 1990 as L.D.C. when the petitioner joined regular service in May, 1990, he immediately protested to this but no decision has been taken by the respondents in this regard. It is submitted by the petitioner that on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner before this Court the respondents may be directed to correct his date of birth in the service records. Shri Vinod Mehta. learned Government Advocate opposed the contention on, the ground that the according to the process the date of birth of the petitioner, has been recorded in his service record on the basis of the mark sheet of Higher Secondary which mentions his date of birth as 1.1.1952 and unless the date of birth in that marks sheet is corrected, the petitioner is not entitled to get changed the date of birth in his service record. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it is not in dispute that the petitioner immediately on joining regular service protested the date of birth and the respondents have not considered the matter so far. There is overwhelming evidence in the matter showing that the date of birth at one point of time was written 1.1.1955 but subsequently, due to clerical error it was changed as 1.1.1952. The Principal of Government Boys Higher Secondary School No.2, Satna has explained the aforesaid position by his letter, Annexure A-3 which clearly shows that at the time of issuance of transfer certificate to the petitioner the aforesaid error occurred, while the correct date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the school records is 1.1.1955. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to raise the aforesaid contentions before the respondents which deserve to be considered by the respondents and if necessary, some enquiry may be conducted by the respondents for the correction of date of birth of the petitioner. It is not a case where at the fag end of the service carrier the petitioner is seeking correction of his date of birth but in this case at the initial stage of his service carrier the petitioner raised this point before the respondents which has not been looked into by the respondents to give justice to the petitioner. Consequently, this petition stands allowed. Consequently, this petition stands allowed. The following directions are issued to the respondents No. 1 and 2 in this regard. The petitioner may file a fresh representation for correction of his date of birth in the service record before the respondent No. 1 through proper channel i.e. the respondent No.2 within sixty days, supported by necessary documents, if any. The respondent No.2, on receipt of the aforesaid representation, shall forward the matter to respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1, on receiving the representation, shall consider the prayer of the petitioner taking into account the documents, if any with the representation, in accordance with law: and if necessary, may direct for a summary inquiry in this regard and as per the result of the inquiry, if any, the date of birth of the petitioner in his service records shall be corrected. No orders as to costs.