( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant in O. S. No. 1707 of 1988 on the file of I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaring his date of birth as 28. 06. 1946 and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to correct the date of birth in his service records and implement the same for all service purposes. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff contended that he was born on 28. 06. 1946, which was duly recorded in the school records by his parents at Government Central Primary-cum-Middle School, Hanmakonda. After passing 8th class, while getting admission into 9th class in Government Multi-purpose High School, Hanmakonda, the date of birth was wrongly recorded as 17. 02. 1943 by the school authorities. After passing HSC examination, steps were taken by the plaintiff for getting the date of birth corrected. Later, the plaintiff joined in the Army on 17. 12. 1966 and during the training period, the mistake committed in the 9th class school records was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities by the plaintiff through his letter, dated 03. 03. 1967. The plaintiff made representations to the director of School Education and the concerned District Educational Officer, warangal. After the District Educational Officer issued proceedings on 29. 12. 1984 correcting the date of birth of the plaintiff, the same was duly implemented by the office of the Commissioner, Government Examinations, Andhra pradesh. After his posting at Secunderabad on 25. 07. 1983 the plaintiff received proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Warangal. Later the plaintiff made a representation to the Department through his letter, dated 25. 04. 1985 asking him to correct his date of birth in the service records. The plaintiff received a reply from the defendant on 23. 05. 1985 asking him to represent his case through proper channel. Again the plaintiff received another letter from the defendant on 17. 12. 1985 stating that the case has been examined by the government and the same has not been accepted. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice and later filed the suit for the reliefs as mentioned above. ( 4 ) THE defendant remained ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff granting the reliefs as prayed for. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice and later filed the suit for the reliefs as mentioned above. ( 4 ) THE defendant remained ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff granting the reliefs as prayed for. When the decree was sought to be implemented, the defendant preferred an appeal, covered by a. S. No. 28 of 1992, before the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad. The learned Chief Judge, after considering the entire material, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. ( 5 ) THE defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Courts below, preferred the present appeal contending that there is perversity in the judgments of the Courts below as the application for correction of date of birth was not made by the plaintiff within two years from the date of entry into service and as the entry in the service records was made on the basis of the information furnished by the plaintiff, the same cannot be altered. ( 6 ) IN the light of the above circumstances, it has to be examined whether the plaintiff placed sufficient material to convince that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the service records and whether the application was made to the concerned authorities within two years from the date of entry into service. ( 7 ) THE plaintiff contended that he was born on 28. 06. 1946. By mistake, the date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 17. 02. 1943 in the HSC records. When he made an application to the District Educational Officer, after due enquiry he passed an order to correct the date of birth and accordingly, the Commissioner for School Education corrected the date of birth in the school certificate and as the date of birth in the school certificate was corrected, it has to be corrected in the service records also. The plaintiff further contended that he entered the service on 17. 12. 1966 and he made an application to the concerned authorities on 03. 03. 1967 brining to their notice that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 17. 02. 1943 and he is taking steps to get the same corrected from the concerned authorities. The plaintiff further contended that he entered the service on 17. 12. 1966 and he made an application to the concerned authorities on 03. 03. 1967 brining to their notice that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 17. 02. 1943 and he is taking steps to get the same corrected from the concerned authorities. It is his further contention that at his request, the District Educational Officer issued proceedings to correct the date of birth. Subsequently, he made an application on 25. 04. 1985 requesting the concerned authorities to correct the date of birth in his service records and he received a reply on 17. 12. 1985 informing that his request cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) THE learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that when the concerned authorities gave rejection order, covered by Ex. A. 8, the plaintiff did not challenge the same; that the plaintiff filed the suit against the Union of India without adding the concerned authorities as parties to the suit; that there is no acknowledgement in proof of sending the representation to the concerned authorities in the year 1967 and that the appellate Court did not take into consideration the Army Regulation No. 138 and therefore, requested to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. ( 9 ) IN the light of the above facts and contentions, it has to be verified whether there is sufficient material to prove that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 28. 06. 1946. ( 10 ) EX. A. 1 is the letter addressed to the Officer Commanding, Base Battalion mentioning that the plaintiff gave the date of birth in the recruitment office on 17. 02. 1943 as recorded in the HSC, but his actual date of birth is 28. 06. 1946 as per the Government Central Primary-cum-Middle School, Hanmakonda and the same was wrongly recorded by the Government Multi-purpose High School, Hanmakonda. He further mentioned that he has taken up the case with educational authorities for correction. Therefore, he requested the concerned authorities for correction after amending his date of birth by the educational authority. ( 11 ) SO from the wording of Ex. A. 1-letter, it is clear that as on the date of ex. A. 1 letter dated 03. 03. He further mentioned that he has taken up the case with educational authorities for correction. Therefore, he requested the concerned authorities for correction after amending his date of birth by the educational authority. ( 11 ) SO from the wording of Ex. A. 1-letter, it is clear that as on the date of ex. A. 1 letter dated 03. 03. 1967, the date of birth of the plaintiff was not corrected in the school records and the matter was said to be pending before the concerned educational authorities. He did not mention as to when he detected for the first time that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the high school records, how he came to know that his correct date of birth is 18. 06. 1946 and what is the basis for the plaintiff to claim that his correct date of birth is 28. 06. 1946. Except self-serving testimony, there is no other evidence placed by the plaintiff to prove his correct date of birth as 28. 06. 1946. Neither the parents nor the relations were examined to prove as to how many issues were born to their parents, whether there were elder or younger brothers or sisters to him, whether he is the sole issue to his parents, what are the ages of those brothers or sisters, whether their date of births were entered in the school records and what is the time lag between their date of births and his date of birth. He has not produced any acknowledgment to prove that he sent the letter covered by Ex. A. 1 to the concerned authorities. There is no proof that he enclosed the relevant material to the said letter for the purpose of consideration whether there is any entry in the Birth Register of his village and whether he tried to obtain any copy to prove that the date of birth entered in the service records is wrong. ( 12 ) IN the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, covered by Ex. A. 2, there is no mention whether the plaintiff made an application for correction of the date of birth as claimed by him. Ex. ( 12 ) IN the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, covered by Ex. A. 2, there is no mention whether the plaintiff made an application for correction of the date of birth as claimed by him. Ex. A. 2 is not the proceeding of the district Educational Officer that he was convinced with the genuineness of the date of birth, whether he examined any witnesses, whether he verified any records and how he believed that it is the correct date of birth. The plaintiff failed to produce the record of the Government Central Primary-cum-Middle school, Hanmakonda to show that his date of birth was mentioned as 28. 06. 1946. There is no evidence placed by him to establish whether the date of birth furnished to the elementary school was the correct date of birth, whether there was any declaration given by the parents that it is the correct date of birth. Ex. A. 2 is only a proceeding forwarding the HSC book after getting the date of birth corrected by the Commissioner for Government Examinations. ( 13 ) IN Ex. A. 4 letter there is no mention of the receipt of the original of ex. A. 1 letter from the plaintiff. In Ex. A. 5 it was mentioned by the Government that as per the Government of India Memos dated 23. 06. 1954 and 21. 04. 1964, the date of birth in respect of the officers can be amended within two years from the date of grant of first commission. The officer had served in ranks from 17. 12. 1966 to 24. 07. 1983. He could have got the date of birth amended. Though the officer is said to have made a representation for change of the date of birth, but the out come has not been indicated. The officer's date of birth given in his application for grant of PC (SL) has already been accepted in Audit and Government of India Gazette Notification for grant of PC (SL) published on 14. 01. 1984. ( 14 ) IN Ex. A. 6 letter the plaintiff mentioned that his date of birth was originally mentioned in the transfer certificate issued by the Government central Primary-cum-Middle School, Hanmakonda as 28. 06. 1946. But in the admission register at Government Multi-purpose High School, Hanmakonda, it was wrongly recorded as 17. 02. 1943. The anomaly came to the notice through his HSC certificate. A. 6 letter the plaintiff mentioned that his date of birth was originally mentioned in the transfer certificate issued by the Government central Primary-cum-Middle School, Hanmakonda as 28. 06. 1946. But in the admission register at Government Multi-purpose High School, Hanmakonda, it was wrongly recorded as 17. 02. 1943. The anomaly came to the notice through his HSC certificate. He informed the same to his father, who immediately advised him to put up an application to the higher school authorities for change of date of birth. He made an application on 25. 08. 1964, but he did not receive any reply from them. He entered the service on 17. 12. 1966 and he made an application on 03. 03. 1967 for change of date of birth and he was informed that his file was in progress. During the year 1981 when he came to know the JCO's promotion, he again took up the case through the school authorities for correction of date of birth as requested earlier. However, it was not decided. After his posting at secunderabad, which nearer to his own town, he again took up the case with district Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer issued the proceedings after getting the date corrected to the Commissioner for Government examinations. By rendering the job he gave the date of birth as 17. 12. 1943. Since the date of birth has been amended in the school records, he requested the authorities to correct the date of birth. Later, the plaintiff filed the suit. In the plaint also the plaintiff did not mention any details about his parents or other issues of his parents. The plaintiff also failed to place any material to show that he made the application within two years from the date of entering into service, though the copy of the application said to be made was filed for alteration of date of birth. ( 15 ) REGULATION 138 of the Army Regulations, 1987 reads as follows: "138. The plaintiff also failed to place any material to show that he made the application within two years from the date of entering into service, though the copy of the application said to be made was filed for alteration of date of birth. ( 15 ) REGULATION 138 of the Army Regulations, 1987 reads as follows: "138. Alteration of Age.- (a) The date of birth or apparent age recorded a the time of enrolment shall be held to be binding and no alteration or amendment thereto will be carried out except with the prior sanction of - (i) the Chief of the Army Staff in all cases of other ranks and in such of the cases of JCOs wherein change or alteration becomes necessary due to clerical error, involving no re-adjustment of pay and allowances; and (ii) the Government in cases other than those referred to in sub-para (a) (i) above. Unless requests for the alteration of date of birth/apparent age are made within two years of the individual's enrolment, these shall not be considered. No requests made at the time of or after discharge/release/retirement will be entertained. " (b) In cases where the age of re-enrolment has not been correctly assessed by the enrolling officer or recruiting medical officer the age in the new enrolment form will be amended to conform to that recorded in the original one. Such an alteration will be made on the authority of a DO Pt II and signed both by the officer carrying out the amendment and the soldier concerned. In cases where the correctness of age shown in the enrolment form relating to first enrolment is challenged by an OR and documentary proof is furnished in support of the representation, the case will be submitted to Army Headquarters through the audit authority concerned with the following documents/certificates for obtaining the sanction of the Government or Chief of the Army Staff as the case may be:-- (i) Original and new enrolment form (1afk-1162/1165 ). (ii) Certificate from the Unit Medical Officer showing the present apparent age. (iii) School or Birth Certificate in original. (iv) Certificate from the CO that the school/birth certificate produced by the individual appears to be genuine and he recommends the alteration to the age recorded in the enrolment form. (v) Explanation from the individual for not disclosing the correct age at the time of original enrolment. (iii) School or Birth Certificate in original. (iv) Certificate from the CO that the school/birth certificate produced by the individual appears to be genuine and he recommends the alteration to the age recorded in the enrolment form. (v) Explanation from the individual for not disclosing the correct age at the time of original enrolment. Unless requests for the alteration of the date birth/apparent age are made within two years of the individual's re-enrolment, these shall not be considered. (c) In the case of personnel who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination prior to the date of their enrolment, the date of birth as given in the Matriculation or equivalent certificate will invariably be entered in the enrolment form. Where the date of birth recorded in the enrolment form is different from that shown in the Matriculation or equivalent certificate, Record officer concerned will, irrespective of whether or not an individiual had applied for a change in date of birth, take action to carry out necessary amendment in the enrolment form after obtaining the approval of the competent authority, to record the date of birth in conformity with that of the matriculation/equivalent certificate, provided that no cognizance shall be taken of the certificate of Matriculation/equivalent examination produced by an individual two years after his enrolment. In the case of personnel who pass Matriculation (or equivalent) Examination subsequent to their enrolment, the OC unit will ensure that the date of birth entered by the individual in the Admission Form for the Matriculation (or equivalent) Examination conforms to that recorded in the enrolment form. Matriculation certificate obtained for having passed Metric Examination subsequent to enrolment will not, however, be recognized for purposes of alteration of age/date of birth recorded in the enrolment form. " ( 16 ) THE above said regulation is very clear regarding the procedure that has to be followed for change of birth, if any, and the period within which the application has to be made for alteration of date of birth. ( 17 ) AFTER considering the above material I made to understand that the trial Court mechanically accepted the plea of the plaintiff without any supporting material either oral or documentary and the appellate Court was also carried away by the correction made by the authorities that 28. 06. 1946 is the correct date of birth. ( 17 ) AFTER considering the above material I made to understand that the trial Court mechanically accepted the plea of the plaintiff without any supporting material either oral or documentary and the appellate Court was also carried away by the correction made by the authorities that 28. 06. 1946 is the correct date of birth. But, as far as the candidates who are in service are concerned, they are supposed to make the application within two years for alteration of the date of birth. The plaintiff has not placed any proof that the application made by him reached the concerned authorities within two years. ( 18 ) THE plaintiff admitted that he furnished the date of birth in the application made to the Army authorities for his appointment and on the basis of which, the date of birth was entered in the service records and it was also notified. Though the plaintiff contended that he started taking steps to correct the date of birth from 1967, he did not pursue the matter till 1993 on the ground that he was away from the native place, therefore, he could not pursue the same. Though the plaintiff mainly relied on the correction made in the HSC certificate, he has not adduced any independent evidence to establish that his correct date of birth is 28. 06. 1946 and he made an application for correction in the year 1967. In the absence of such material, the plaintiff may get the school records corrected for other purposes. But, for his employment the date of birth furnished by him at the time of entering into service will be taken into consideration, unless the authorities are convinced by placing sufficient material to show that the date of birth has been wrongly mentioned. As the plaintiff failed to establish that the date of birth was wrongly mentioned, he is not entitled for declaration and for correction of date of birth. ( 19 ) AFTER going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find that there is perversity in the judgments of both the Courts and the evidence placed by the plaintiff has not been properly analyzed. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the judgments of the Courts below by dismissing the suit. ( 20 ) IN the result, the Second Appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the judgments of the Courts below by dismissing the suit. ( 20 ) IN the result, the Second Appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside. O. S. No. 1707 of 1988 is dismissed. However in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.