Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1120 (ALL)

Ram Dev Tripathi v. State of U. P.

2013-04-12

SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Through this petition, the petitioner has claimed for change of date of birth on the basis of the High School certificate, which he has completed in 1983 during the period of service. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed on Class-IV post and at the time of entering into the service, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 10.12.1951. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the High School in 1983 and there he got his date of birth recorded as 24.3.1953. He made a representation for change of date of birth as 24.3.1953 before the opposite parties, who rejected the claim of the petitioner by means of order dated 18.10.2011. 4. The petitioner has not made any effort to get his date of birth changed after entering into the service and as and when he completed High School, he prayed for the same. A stand has been taken by the counsel for the petitioner that the date of birth ought to have been changed as the initial date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the school records was also 24.3.1953. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Clerk in 1988. 5. It is to be noted that petitioner has made no effort to get his date of birth changed after entering into the service up till 1983. The initial date of birth, which has been entered in the service book has to be taken final for all the purposes. Any change in the date of birth at a subsequent point of time by virtue of qualification acquired by the petitioner, cannot be made a ground for change of date of birth. The initial date of birth entered into the service record is 10.12.1951 and that is final all throughout. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner to get his date of birth changed cannot be accepted. 6. The petitioner has also raised a ground for the session extension benefit as is being given to the Lecturers and Assistant Teachers. 7. The case of the petitioner stands on a different footing as the session extension is provided to the teachers only with a view that the studies of the students may not be affected and the students may be prepared for the ensuing board examinations. 7. The case of the petitioner stands on a different footing as the session extension is provided to the teachers only with a view that the studies of the students may not be affected and the students may be prepared for the ensuing board examinations. The petitioner and other similarly situated persons have no contribution in that regard and neither they are involved in imparting education to the students. Therefore, the aforesaid claim of the petitioner is also not accepted. 8. Writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. 9. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that retiral dues of the petitioner have been withheld on account of pendency of this petition. 10. It is accordingly directed that the opposite parties will release the retiral dues of the petitioner at the earliest.