JUDGMENT : N.V. ANJARIA, J. 1. The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, original defendant No. 5, preferred the present Second Appeal, questioning the legality of judgment and decree dated 13th March, 2001, of learned District Judge, Junagadh, who dismissed the Appeal before him, being Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1994 and in turn, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 1.1 The Trial Court decreed the Suit of respondent No. 1 herein, original plaintiff, giving declaration as prayed for that the date of birth of the plaintiff was 12.03.1945 and not 12.03.1943. It was further held and declared that for the error committed in recording the birth date in the SCC Examination form, defendant No. 3-School was responsible. The Trial Court further directed defendant No. 5-appellant Corporation to admit the birth date in the service record of the plaintiff to be 12.03.1945, instead of 12.03.1943 which was recorded at the time of his entering the service, and also directed to give to the plaintiff all service benefits including seniority on the basis of corrected birth date. 2. This Court, while admitting the Appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, who had entered in service in the year 1966 can apply for correction of the birth date after lapse of 20 years in clear violation of Rule 6, Chapter-II of the Gujarat State Transport Service Regulations? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Courts below were justified in placing reliance on the certificate Exh.29 admitted in evidence without therein being any legal evidence in support of the certificate Exh.29? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent No. 1-plaintiff had produced irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and produced at the time of his entering into service of the appellant- Corporation? 4. Whether it was open for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to apply for change of correction of birth date after period of limitation was over as per the statutory Rules and Regulations framed by the appellant-Corporation? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff had discharged the onus of proof to be on him to correct change of birth date in the service record? 6. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff had discharged the onus of proof to be on him to correct change of birth date in the service record? 6. Whether the Civil Court can grant relief beyond the scope of evidence produced by the parties?” 3. The case and the controversy in their factual arena may be outlined. The plaintiff was serving as Junior Assistant under the appellant-Corporation. He joined the services in the year 1966. In the Civil Suit No. 753 of 1988, instituted before the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Junagadh, for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, it was the case put forth by the plaintiff that in March 1965, he passed Secondary School Certificate (SSC) Examination from defendant No. 3-School. It was stated that because of mistake committed by defendant No. 3, his date of birth got recorded in the original SSC Certificate, as 12.03.1943, the same ought to be 12.03.1945. The plaintiff made a representation before School, and he was assured by the School that the birth date could be corrected after permission from defendant No. 1-Secondary Education Board. It was further averred that as nothing happened despite passage of long time, at the suggestion of defendant No. 3- School, an application was made to the Board on 19th November, 1984. Thereafter, the plaintiff was compelled to file the Suit. 3.1 The appellant herein-defendant No. 5, filed its written statement at Exh.13 and contended that the plaintiff joined the services of the Corporation on the post of “Writer” with effect from 25.11.1966. At that time, he mentioned his date of birth to be 12.03.1943 and produced SSC Certificate in support. On that basis, the birth date was recorded in his service book. The Corporation stated that at the time of entry in the service, the plaintiff produced the SSC certificate showing that his date of birth was 12.03.1943. It was contended that the birth date so recorded was final. The Corporation contended that under the Regulations of the Corporation, more particularly under Rule 6. Chapter II of the Gujarat State Transport Service Regulations, the correction of the birth date of the employee was permissible provided that employee makes application by producing necessary documentary proof within 3 months from the date of joining the service. The Corporation contended that under the Regulations of the Corporation, more particularly under Rule 6. Chapter II of the Gujarat State Transport Service Regulations, the correction of the birth date of the employee was permissible provided that employee makes application by producing necessary documentary proof within 3 months from the date of joining the service. It was contended that the plaintiff's application made in the year 1986 was not liable to be considered. 3.2 Defendant No. 3-School filed its written statement at Exh.9, in which, it inter-alia stated that it was by error that the date of birth of the plaintiff was erroneously mentioned in the SSC Certificate. It was stated that the school had given a duplicate leaving certificate upon request of the plaintiff, showing the correct date of birth. It was further contended that necessary procedure before the Gujarat Secondary Board was being followed. The other defendants did not file written statement. 3.3 The Trial Court framed the issues at Exh.16 and ultimately, passed the declaratory decree in favour of the plaintiff, as above. The appellant-Corporation was directed to correct the date of birth and accord to the plaintiff the benefits of service arising thereby. The First Appellate Court dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1994 preferred by the appellant. Therefore, the Corporation preferred the present Appeal before this Court. 3.4 At the time of admission of the Appeal, by order dated 30.03.2001 passed in Civil Application No. 3676 of 2001, this Court, by detailed order, stayed the execution, implementation and operation of the judgment and decree of the District Court, as well as the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The plaintiff-employee retired on 31.03.2001 on reaching the age of superannuation on the basis of birth date 12.03.1943 recorded in his service book. 4. Heard learned advocate Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, holding brief for learned advocate Mr. Hardik Rawal for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. A.S. Supehia for respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Ms. J.N. Dekavadiya appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr. A.D. Oza for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jyoti Bhatt appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Dharitri Pancholi, holding brief for learned advocate Mr. Hardik Rawal for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. A.S. Supehia for respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Ms. J.N. Dekavadiya appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr. A.D. Oza for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jyoti Bhatt appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below was not sustainable, because the Courts below concurrently erred in giving declaration about birth date and directing the appellant to alter the service record and give the plaintiff the consequential service benefits. It was submitted that the application for correction was made after 20 years, whereas the rule applicable prescribed a definite time limit. It was submitted that in any case, the belated claim for correction of birth date could not be entertained, as held by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments. Learned advocate placed reliance on decision of this Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited and Others vs. Natha Jinabhai Since deceased through heirs, being Second Appeal No. 24 of 2001, decided on 30.04.2013 (2013 Lab IC 3488 (Guj.). 4.2 Learned advocate for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the error due to incorrect mentioning of date of birth in the SSC Certificate was admittedly committed by respondent No. 3-School. The process to correct the said obvious mistake was undertaken by applying to the Secondary Education Board and the School also issued a duplicate and corrected school leaving certificate at a later point of time. He further submitted that the plaintiff was honest in stating the date on the basis of SSC Certificate, though it mentioned a wrong date of birth, when he entered the service. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that those facts unmistakably showed that the plaintiff was not at fault in any manner. He submitted that it was a genuine case for correction of the birth date. As it was any apparent mistake committed, submitted learned advocate for respondent No. 1, it would be wrong to hold the plaintiff disentitled only on the ground that he did not apply for correction immediately; the process of correction was underway, which was an additional reason. He submitted that it was a genuine case for correction of the birth date. As it was any apparent mistake committed, submitted learned advocate for respondent No. 1, it would be wrong to hold the plaintiff disentitled only on the ground that he did not apply for correction immediately; the process of correction was underway, which was an additional reason. Learned advocate further submitted that his request was replied by Depot Manager of the Corporation by a communication dated 28.08.1987 (Exh.31), in which, an assurance was given that after correction of birth date was carried out in SSC Certificate, the Corporation would do the necessary. On the basis of the said communication, it was submitted that thus, the Corporation had agreed for correction and was estopped from raising a contention that rule provided a fixed period for making a request. 4.3 Learned advocate for defendant No. 1 Board-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, submitted that the law would not permit any change of birth date in the service record, once it was correctly recorded at the relevant time. He relied on order dated 11.08.2003 of the Division Bench of this Court in Minor Jagdishbhai Prabhatbhai Gohil through father and guardian vs. State of Gujarat, being Letters Patent Appeal No. 699 of 2003, to additionally submit that in view of Regulation 12-A of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974, the school record could not be corrected by changing the birth date. He, therefore, submitted that it was held by the Division Bench that only remedy with the appellant was to approach the learned Magistrate, First Class, having jurisdiction in the matter for redressal of his grievance as provided under section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 5. In Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and Others vs. R. Kirubakaran, AIR 1993 SC 2647 , the Supreme Court observed that an application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. Any such direction for correction of the date of birth has a chain reaction. Any such direction for correction of the date of birth has a chain reaction. It was observed that before any such direction for correction of birth date already recorded in the service book, the Court must be fully satisfied inter-alia that the claim for correction is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed and within the time limit fixed by any rule. It was further held that if there is no rule prescribed for the period, within which, such application can be filed, then the application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. 5.1 The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record, stated the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Harnam Singh, AIR 1993 SC 1367 and observed that any request for correction in the date of birth may be entertained, but only within the time limit fixed in the rules in that regard. The Apex Court then ruled: “...even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied by the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time-limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age.” (Para 7) 5.2 In Board of Secondary Education of Assam vs. MD. Sarifuz Zaman and Others, (2003) 12 SCC 408 , while holding that prescription of time limit of three years prescribed in Regulation 8 of Assam Regulations for conduct of examination by the Board, for correction of birth date, be reasonable and not arbitrary, the Apex Court held that right to correction of birth date is not a vested right. In Commissioner of Police vs. Bhagwan V. Lahanethis, (1997) 1 SCC 247 , the Supreme Court ruled that before an employee can legitimately seek a correction in his date of birth, the condition precedent is that he must demonstrate that the incorrect recording of his birth date was due of mistake of some other person or that the same was in the nature of a clerical error. What can be said to be a bona fide error was explained in Union of India vs. C. Rama Swami, (1997) 4 SCC 647 , stating that a bona fide error would normally be one, where though in the application form, a particular date of birth date is indicated by the employee for seeking his employment, but the employer or his officer, by mistake or oversight, records a different date. 5.3 In State of Punjab vs. S.C. Chadha, (2004) 3 SCC 394 , the birth date of the employee recorded at the time of getting employment was on the basis of one recorded in the Higher Secondary Examination Certificate. For several years of employment, the birth date so recorded continued; the employee did not make any attempt to get the same corrected. Subsequently, the Government granted opportunity to get the date of birth corrected and at that stage, the employee made application for correction. His request was refused on the ground of delay. The High Court interfered with the order of the employer. Subsequently, the Government granted opportunity to get the date of birth corrected and at that stage, the employee made application for correction. His request was refused on the ground of delay. The High Court interfered with the order of the employer. The Supreme Court held that in absence of an explanation for long delay in making the application for correction of date of birth and in absence of any “contemporaneous” evidence, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of refusal and the direction for correction of the recorded birth date could not have been given. 5.4 State of U.P. vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, (2005) 6 SCC 49 , decried the conduct on part of the employee for seeking change in the date of birth on the eve of retirement and observed: “Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as the date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recoded in the relevant register or service book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. But, of late in trend can be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of their retirement waking up from their supine slumber raise a dispute about their service records, by either invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or by filing applications before the Administrative Tribunals concerned, or even filing suits for adjudication as to whether the date of birth recorded is correct or not.” (Para 6) 5.5 Again in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 , the claim for change of date of birth was made after lapse over two decades. Even though, no time limit was prescribed for making such application, the Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a manifest error in allowing the change. The Apex Court was dealing with Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code, which inter-alia provided that the date of birth, once recorded in the manner prescribed, must be deemed to be absolutely conclusive, and except in the case of clerical error, no change shall be allowed at a later point of time. The Apex Court was dealing with Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code, which inter-alia provided that the date of birth, once recorded in the manner prescribed, must be deemed to be absolutely conclusive, and except in the case of clerical error, no change shall be allowed at a later point of time. The Court reiterated that an employee cannot claim correction of date of birth in his service record as a matter of right. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles and parameters and in that light revisiting the specific facts of the case, the documents on record show that the plaintiff requested the appellant-Corporation for correction in his birth date on 20.01.1986 by addressing a communication to the Divisional Controller (Exh.30). He stated that as per certificate produced at the time of getting appointment in the year 1966, his date of birth was wrongly shown, however, from the family records, he learned the correct date. He stated that he studied from 7th standard to 11th Standards, but thereafter while appearing in the SSC Examination, on account of slip of pen by the school staff, his date of birth came to be mentioned as 12.03.1943. He produced certain documents including certificate dated 26.11.1984 (Exh.29) given by the defendant No. 3-School. Another letter dated 28.03.1986 (Exh.32) was also addressed by the plaintiff to the Divisional Controller, stating that the error was committed in recording the birth date by the School. It was stated that an application was made to the Secondary Board for correcting the birth date in the SSC Certificate. Application to the Board for correcting the date in the SSC Certificate appeared to have been made on 23.11.1984 (Exh.24) and the reminder was sent on 27.08.1985 (Exh.25). The request (Exh.30 and Exh.32) of the plaintiff was replied by the Depot Manager on 28.08.1987 (Exh.31) stating that the matter could be considered after correction was effected in the certificate of the SSC Board. 6.1 It is thus revealed that when the plaintiff joined the service, the relevant SSC certificate mentioned his birth date to be 12.03.1943, which document was produced as proof for his birth date. They were authenticated documents recording the birth date and on the basis of which, the details regarding birth date was entered in the service record. 6.1 It is thus revealed that when the plaintiff joined the service, the relevant SSC certificate mentioned his birth date to be 12.03.1943, which document was produced as proof for his birth date. They were authenticated documents recording the birth date and on the basis of which, the details regarding birth date was entered in the service record. The request for correction as per applications Exh.30 and 32 was made by the plaintiff in the year 1986 i.e. after a gap of 20 years. When the date of birth was recorded at the time entry in service, it was recorded on the basis of the certificate. It was not that in recording the birth date, any error or mischief was committed or lapse occurred on part of the appellant- Corporation or its officers. The appellant-Corporation had its rules regarding the time limit, within which, an employee could apply for rectification in the birth date recorded in the service book. It was the case of the appellant that the time limit for making such request for correction of birth date was 3 months. 7. Thus, from the above facts, it was clearly seen that after joining the service, the plaintiff sat tight for long 20 years. He did not make any request for correction of his birth date. No explanation for his inaction between 1966 and 1986, when he first applied, seeking correction of birth date, is available. Not only that, Regulation 6 of the Service Regulations of the Corporation set down a time limit of 3 months. It was, therefore, incumbent on part of respondent No. 1-plaintiff to apply for correction of date of birth within the prescribed period, if he was of the belief that the date of birth recorded required a correction. It is a trite principle laid down and discussed above that a request for correction of date of birth could be entertained provided that the request of the employee could be corrected in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the rule. 7.1 In State of Tamil Nadu vs. Venugopalan, 1944 (6) SCC 302, this principle was reiterated that rule provided for application for alteration of recorded birth date would be entertained only if it is made within 5 years after entering the service. 7.1 In State of Tamil Nadu vs. Venugopalan, 1944 (6) SCC 302, this principle was reiterated that rule provided for application for alteration of recorded birth date would be entertained only if it is made within 5 years after entering the service. The Supreme Court held that an employee, already in service at the time of enforcing such rule, was obliged to make application within the said period of 5 years, otherwise he would lose his right to make such an application. 7.2 Delay in seeking correction of birth date, once entered in the service record, is by itself fatal to the rights of an employee raising a claim for correction. This was emphasised by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ram Suia Sharma, (1996) 7 SCC 421 , observing and holding thus: “The controversy raised in this appeal is no longer res integra. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that a court or tribunal at the belated stage cannot entertain a claim for the correction of the date of birth duly entered in the service records. Admittedly, the respondent had joined the service on 16-12-1962. After 25 years, he woke up and claimed that his correct date of birth is 2-1-1939 and not 16-12-1934. That claim was accepted by the Tribunal and it directed the Government to consider the correction. The direction is per se illegal.” (Para 2) 7.3 In Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (supra), the facts were that the employee produced a school leaving certificate, stating that it recorded a correct date of birth and at the time of entering into service, the birth date was got corrected on the basis of the record of primary school of the village, which was not corrected. The relevant regulation of Gujarat Electricity Board provided that the correction of birth date could be permitted provided that the employee applied before reaching the age of 50 years. This Court held that even if the date of birth recorded at the time of entering into service was wrong and subsequently, a school leaving certificate, which otherwise could be authenticated document for birth date, was produced, the same by itself was no ground for correcting the date of birth at a late stage. 8. This Court held that even if the date of birth recorded at the time of entering into service was wrong and subsequently, a school leaving certificate, which otherwise could be authenticated document for birth date, was produced, the same by itself was no ground for correcting the date of birth at a late stage. 8. It was sought to be contended by learned advocate for respondent No. 1-plaintiff that in response to his application in 1986, the competent officer of the Corporation responded to state that appropriate action could be taken after birth date was corrected in the SSC Certificate and therefore, the appellant was agreeable for correction in the service record after the correction in effected in the SSC Certificate. The contents thereof when carefully considered, it only stated that after correction in the SSC Certificate is done, then only the correction could contemplates further steps. 8.1 In any view, the said Exh.31 could not be treated as holding out any promise to the plaintiff that his birth date would be corrected at a particular later stage. The correction in the birth date was not allowed after 3 months under the appellant's own regulations. The plaintiff, as an employee, was bound by the said service regulations. Therefore, the contention suggesting that some rights were flowing from the reply of the Corporation (Exh.31) was not capable of being countenanced. 9. This is not a case, where the recording of date of birth of the plaintiff was on account of any error or mischief on part of the appellant-Corporation or any of its officer. It was only upon production of the relevant documents showing the birth date, which were authenticated documents and documents showing the acceptable evidence about the birth date produced by the plaintiff, the date of birth was recorded. There was no lapse attributable to the appellant-Corporation for recording the birth date accordingly. The duly recorded birth date stood in the service record for long 20 years. During this entire period, there was total inaction on part of the plaintiff. Then, the Corporation was perfectly justified in refusing the request for correction made after a yawning gap of two decades. It was conspicuous to notice that the plaintiff made application for correction of birth date to the Secondary Education Board as late as in 1984. During this entire period, there was total inaction on part of the plaintiff. Then, the Corporation was perfectly justified in refusing the request for correction made after a yawning gap of two decades. It was conspicuous to notice that the plaintiff made application for correction of birth date to the Secondary Education Board as late as in 1984. Thus, the plaintiff was a person who did not think fit to take corrective steps even after since he joined the service, when he got the birth date recorded as 12.03.1943. 9.1 The principle that an employee is not to be allowed correction of his date of birth already recorded at the time of entry in service, except in accordance with the rules in that regard and in any case within a reasonable time only is based on a definite purpose. In public employment, it has public policy object. It further seeks to achieve administrative certainty. An employee when gets recorded his date of birth in his service book at the time of entry with open eyes, if he is allowed at its sweet-win to alter the said date on one or other ground, even if it has some merit, it would have cascading or spiraling consequences, as it would have tendency to upset the settle rights of co-employees and pose serious difficulties to the administration in general. Therefore, the Apex Court observed in R. Kirubakaran (supra) held that the question of correction of date of birth could be viewed from the stand point of employee alone, more particularly, when it comes to entertaining a stale claim for correction. 10. In view of above discussion and reasons, it has to be held that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, granting declaration to the plaintiff that his date of birth was 12.03.1945 and not 12.03.1943 and giving direction to the Corporation to correct the same and to grant the benefits on the basis of the said claimed birth date, cannot be upheld. The judgment and decree dated 18.03.1993 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 753 of 1988 by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Junagadh and confirmed by learned District Court, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1994 by judgment and decree dated 13.03.2001, is hereby set aside. 11. The Appeal is allowed. Registry to send back the record and proceedings. 11. The Appeal is allowed. Registry to send back the record and proceedings. Appeal allowed.