JUDGMENT : [1.0.] By way of this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, whereby the request made by the petitioner to record change of his date of birth in the service book to be 15.01.1964 instead of 01.06.1962 is refused. The said order came to be communicated vide communication dated 06.09.2019 by District Education Officer, Ahmedabad City addressed to the Principal of Navrang Secondary School, Naranpura, Ahmedabad where at present petitioner is serving. The petitioner has challenged both the orders as also requested the Court to direct the authority to change the date of birth as aforesaid in his service book as per the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kheralu, dated 18.02.2013 in Criminal Misc. Application No.62 of 2012 in the interest of justice. [2.0.] As the initial service detail is not mentioned in the petition but from the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2 herein, affirmed on 14.06.2020, it is clear that the petitioner joined the service on 23.09.1992, where his date of birth was noted as 01.06.1962, as Assistant Teacher. On 21.05.2012, the mother of the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Application No.62 of 2012 under the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1947 seeking change of date of birth recorded in school leaving certificate bearing general register No.1424 at Municipal High School, Kheralu and place of birth based on birth certificate issued by the Chachariya Gram Panchayat. The said application came to be filed against the Principal of Municipal High School, Kheralu, as also the Talati-cum-Mantri, Chachariya Gram Panchayat, Tal: Kheralu, Dist: Mehsana. It was claimed in the aforesaid application before the learned Magistrate that the school leaving certificate of the petitioner contains two wrong details by mistake (i) date of birth to be 01.06.1962 and (ii) place of birth to be village- Thangana. It was claimed in that application that actual date of birth of the petitioner is 15.01.1964 and place of birth to be village-Chachariya. It is further claimed in it that the birth of petitioner took place at the parental home of his mother being Village-Chachariya. It is further claimed in it that the said birth was registered in the record of Chachariya Gram Panchayat. It is further claimed in it that the birth of petitioner took place at the parental home of his mother being Village-Chachariya. It is further claimed in it that the said birth was registered in the record of Chachariya Gram Panchayat. It is further claimed in it that while admitting the petitioner in school, through mistake date of birth is given to be 01.06.1962 as also place of birth stated to be “Thangana”. [3.0.] The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kheralu by his judgment and order dated 18.2.2013, after recording the deposition of the mother of the petitioner, maternal uncle of the petitioner, headclerk of the municipal high school, Kheralu and Talati-cum-Mantri of Chachariya Gram Panchayat, concluded and directed that in a school leaving certificate bearing certificate No.1026 of the petitioner date of birth be corrected from 01.6.1962 to 15.01.1964 and place of birth to be corrected as Chachariya in place of Village-Thangana. Thus, the Municipal High School, Kheralu directed to effect those changes in the school leaving certificate issued by it. It appears that petitioner requested the authority to effect the change of date of birth in the service record based on such corrected school leaving certificate. However, the authority appears to have rejected the claim. Therefore, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.12670 of 2016 before this Court praying setting aside of order dated 26.06.2015 refusing to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record and seeking direction to the respondents therein to accept the corrected school leaving certificate in lieu of earlier school leaving certificate and effect the correction in the date of birth of the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 21.02.2018 directed the respondents authorities to reconsider the grievance made by the petitioner as judgment and order passed by the JMFC, Kheralu had attained finality, it was expected that appropriate correction be made in response thereto. [4.0.] Pursuant to the direction/s issued by this Court in aforesaid SCA, Joint Director of Education (Secondary), Gujarat State on reconsideration, passed an order that while recording his date of birth in service record, there is no clerical mistake and request for correction of date of birth in it is made beyond the limitation provided in the Government resolution, rejected the said request by the impugned order dated 19.08.2019. [5.0.] Mr. [5.0.] Mr. R.G.Chaudhary, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that once this Court has directed in earlier round of litigation to reconsider the same and expected the appropriate correction be made in response to the fact that the order of the Magistrate attained finality, it was incumbent upon the authority to effect the change of date of birth in the service book. He has further submitted that the order of Magistrate having become final and not challenged by any of the respondents, it binds them, and therefore, in the service book date of birth as corrected by order of Magistrate is required to be effected. He has further submitted that if it is done he will get his service further for about one and half years more. He has further submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate is binding to the authority, and therefore, there is no option for the respondents to refuse the same. [6.0.] Referring to Section 43 of the Evidence Act, it is submitted by Mr. R.G.Chaudhary, learned advocate for the petitioner that the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate effecting correction in the school leaving certificate of the petitioner is relevant and it is fact in issue and therefore it has to be relied on. He has further relied on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Basanti Devi Vs. Raviprakash Ramprasad Jaiswal rendered in Appeal (Civil) No.4896 of 2007 dated 12.10.2007, more particularly para-22, for a proposition that an application for grant of probate is a proceedings in rem, and therefore, if at all the respondents are aggrieved, they have to challenge the same before the competent Court and that too within limitation. Referring to another decision in the case of Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel w/o Khodabhai Joitaram Patel Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No.19054 of 2018 dated 16.01.2019, more particularly in para-24, it is submitted that Government Resolution/circular cannot override the statutory provisions. [7.0.] Drawing attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by the petitioner against the reply as also sur rejoinder filed by respondent No.2, it is submitted that the petitioner is struggling for justice since 10 years. [7.0.] Drawing attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by the petitioner against the reply as also sur rejoinder filed by respondent No.2, it is submitted that the petitioner is struggling for justice since 10 years. It is the claim of the petitioner that as soon as he came to know about his correct date and place of birth, he immediately moved the learned Magistrate for getting corrected date and place of birth in his school leaving certificate. So far as the precedents relied on by respondent No.2 in the affidavit in reply, it is submitted that those are not applicable on the facts of this case. Therefore, he requested this Court to allow this petition. [8.0.] As against that, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP submitted that the request for change of date of birth in the service record is nothing but an afterthought by the petitioner. He has submitted that when he joined the service, he declared his date of birth to be 01.06.1962. Based on that declaration, which was recorded in his school leaving certificate, he was inducted in the service as an Assistant Teacher on 23.09.1992. He has further submitted that any request for change of date of birth in the service record has to be made when the service book is prepared and before the probation period is over or the ad-hoc employee is considered to be permanent employee continuously for 5 years whichever is earlier and a request beyond that period is not to be considered. However, if government is satisfied that it was because of mistake on the part of clerk to record, it can be permitted to be corrected later on. It is further submitted that since the attempt made by the petitioner cannot be attributed to a clerical mistake or a mistake of clerk for getting corrected his date of birth in service record, it has to be deprecated. [9.0.] Drawing attention to the affidavit in reply, he has further submitted that vide Government Resolution dated 02.09.2005, it was provided that all the teaching and non-teaching staffs of non-government (Secondary) Schools have to file undertaking in Appendix-1 by 31.10.2005 that their certificate of birth, school leaving certificate, SSC certificate and the service book contain same date of birth. [9.0.] Drawing attention to the affidavit in reply, he has further submitted that vide Government Resolution dated 02.09.2005, it was provided that all the teaching and non-teaching staffs of non-government (Secondary) Schools have to file undertaking in Appendix-1 by 31.10.2005 that their certificate of birth, school leaving certificate, SSC certificate and the service book contain same date of birth. The concerned principals of the school where the staff is serving have to issue certificate in Appendix-2 that the undertaking is obtained from them and in their service book record, date of birth is as per the certificate of birth and it is found to be correct. Therefore, he has submitted that in the year 2005 the petitioner himself has given an undertaking in Appendix-1 that at the time of initial entry as an Assistant Teacher his date of birth stated to be 01.06.1962 and service book also contains the same, which is in accordance with certificate of birth, school leaving certificate as also SSC certificate. [10.0.] Mr. Sharma, learned AGP further submitted that the reliance placed on a decision of this Court in SCA No.12670 of 2016, which is annexed at page No.23 of this petition, is out of context. In the first round of litigation when the request for correction of date of birth in the service record was refused by the authority vide order dated 26.06.2015, a petition was filed seeking direction to accept the new corrected school leaving certificate in lieu of earlier school leaving certificate and sought correction in date of birth of the petitioner to be 15.01.1964 instead of 01.06.1962. Neither from the prayer made in that petition nor from the order it is reflected that any reliance was placed on birth certificate issued by the competent authority. Not only that, this Court had directed the respondents authorities to reconsider the issue with regard to the grievance made by the petitioner, since it was requested that the order of Magistrate, Kheralu directing the correction of date and place of birth of the petitioner to be changed in the school leaving certificate. Not only that, this Court had directed the respondents authorities to reconsider the issue with regard to the grievance made by the petitioner, since it was requested that the order of Magistrate, Kheralu directing the correction of date and place of birth of the petitioner to be changed in the school leaving certificate. The authority, on reconsideration, found that the claim is made with regard to change of date of birth in the service record after about more than 20 years, which is beyond the prescribed time limit, that too, after the petitioner himself verified his date of birth to be true and correct in the year 2005, rejected the prayer made by the petitioner, which is challenged before this Court again. [11.0.] Drawing attention of the Court to the decision referred to in para-5 of the affidavit in reply, it is submitted that the correction in the date of birth in the service record has to be sought within prescribed time limit and belated or stale approach is not permissible, more particularly when, if at all, there is an error in recording the correct date of birth it has to be clearly indicated and the person cannot sleep over his right for years/decades together and seek correction in his date of birth belatedly. He has further submitted that the issue raised in the petition is not for determining the correct date of birth of the petitioner. As such, the issue before this Court as also before the respondent – authority was with regard to permissibility of seeking such rectification or correction in the date of birth at the fagend of service. The Government policy and resolution, according to submission of Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP, to correction of date of birth cannot be sought for after 5 years of joining service. Therefore, he has submitted that nearly after 20 years of his joining the service and after 8 years of verifying under a declaration that it is a correct date of birth as recorded in every documents including birth certificate, school leaving certificate as also SSC certificate, mother of the petitioner approached the learned Magistrate to seek change in the date and place of birth of the petitioner, that too, in school leaving certificate where petitioner studied. Therefore, he has submitted that, even if, the learned Magistrate has directed the concerned school authority, where petitioner studied, to effect the change in school leaving certificate, based on such change, no request for rectification/correction of date of birth in the service record can be made. Therefore, he has submitted that the petition be dismissed with exemplary costs. [12.0.] Having heard learned advocates for the appearing parties, it is clear that the claim made in this petition requesting quashing of the order passed by the respondent – authority refusing to correct the date of birth in the service record based on order of the learned Magistrate requires to be examined in detail. According to the government resolution in respect of effecting change in the date of birth in the service record would not be permitted beyond 5 years from the date of joining the service, that too, in respect of any error by clerk in recording it in the service book. Here in the present case, the petitioner has initially joined the service on 23.09.1992 and his date of birth recorded in the service book based on his birth certificate, school leaving certificate as also the SSC certificate. Not only that, in the year 2005, according to government resolution dated 02.09.2005, the petitioner has also verified and assured in Appendix- 1, duly signed by him on 14.10.2005, that his date of birth recorded in the service book to be 01.06.1962 and it is recorded based on birth certificate, school leaving certificate as also SCC certificate, which is true and correct, and in future, petitioner will not pray for any change in date of birth. [13.0.] Despite that, all of sudden the mother of the petitioner on 21.05.2012 filed proceedings in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kheralu being Criminal Misc. Application No.62 of 2012 under the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulation, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as GSER, 1947), joining the Principal, Municipal High School, Kheralu where the petitioner last studied and Talati-cum-Mantri of Village-Chachariya, Tal-Kheralu, Dist- Mehsana sought for relief to effect change of date and place of birth in the school leaving certificate as it got recorded through mistake as 01.06.1962 and the place of birth to be “Thangana” as according to the certificate issued by Chachariya Gram Panchayat stating 15.01.1964 to be the correct date of birth and place of birth to be Chachariya. The learned Magistrate, after considering the GSER, 1947, and the evidence led before it, directed the school authority, where petitioner last studied, to effect change in his date and place of birth in the school leaving certificate to be 15.01.1964 instead of 01.06.1962 and to be Chachariya instead of “Thangana” respectively. The aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate came to be passed on 18.02.2013. However, it is pertinent to note that the District Education Officer or the present school, where the petitioner was serving at that time, were not parties before the Magistrate. Not only that, there is no prayer made in that application before the Magistrate to direct the present respondents to effect change of his date of birth in service record. [14.0.] In first round of litigation, this Court vide order dated 21.02.2018 passed in SCA No.12670/2016, while quashing and setting aside the order passed by the authority dated 26.06.2015, directed to reconsider the grievance made by the petitioner when order of magistrate has become final and nothing beyond. At any rate, the said judgment and order of Magistrate is not a judgment in rem, it never binds present respondents who were not a party respondent before the Magistrate, even if it has become final. Since it was not rendered against the present respondents, it need not be challenged by them. [15.0.] The contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner that once in earlier round of litigation this Court had directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and expected the appropriate correction be made in response to the fact that the order of the learned Magistrate has attained finality, it was incumbent upon the authority to effect the change of date of birth in the service book of the petitioner is erroneous. So far as the Government resolutions are concerned, it permits only errors in recording date of birth by clerk in the service record of an employee to be corrected, that too, within a stipulated time. So far as the Government resolutions are concerned, it permits only errors in recording date of birth by clerk in the service record of an employee to be corrected, that too, within a stipulated time. Here in the present case, the request for effecting the change of date of birth is not only not made within stipulated time limit but it is against his own declaration/assurance in Appendix-1, pursuant to a Government resolution, that date of birth recorded in the service book is as per his birth certificate, school leaving certificate and the SSC certificate and he will never seek any change therein future. Therefore, it is not incumbent upon the authority to effect the change in service record where it is not a mistake in effecting entry by the clerk in the service record. At the same time, if at all, factum of knowledge of incorrect date of birth and place of birth recorded in the school leaving certificate where petitioner last studied based on birth certificate issued by the Talati-cum-Mantri, Chachariya Gram Panchayat, Taluka – Kheralu, instead of requesting learned Magistrate to direct correction of date of birth in his school leaving certificate, the petitioner could have requested the authority on the basis of that very birth certificate issued by the authority. [16.0.] As such, sometimes there may be incorrect date of birth registered in school leaving certificate but there cannot be incorrect entry with regard to date of birth as also the place of birth. If the Gram Panchayat had recorded the birth of the petitioner, that too, in the year 1964, it would not have happened that incorrect date of birth is entered in the school leaving certificate where the petitioner himself has taken admission. Not only the date of birth is incorrect, according to the petitioner, even place of birth is also different while recording date of birth and place of birth in school register, it must have been noted pursuant to some documents. If the certificate of birth from Chachariya Gram Panchayat, which was recorded in 1964, was available, it would not have wrongly entered in the school register at the relevant time. If the certificate of birth from Chachariya Gram Panchayat, which was recorded in 1964, was available, it would not have wrongly entered in the school register at the relevant time. [17.0.] At any rate, belated claim made by the petitioner for effecting change of date of birth in the birth register beyond prescribed time limit by the Government resolution and against his own undertaking recorded way back in the year 2005 is rightly refused by the authority. The order of learned Magistrate directing to effect change of date of birth in the school leaving certificate, where last petitioner studied, cannot be utilized, more particularly, when the present respondents authorities were not parties to the said proceedings before the Court of Magistrate and it is not a judgment in rem, for effecting change in his date of birth in the service record. Thus, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the order effecting change in the school leaving certificate in respect of date of birth and place of birth having become final and not challenged by the respondents – authorities, it binds them, has no legs to stand. [18.0.] The submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner with regard to Section 43 of the Evidence Act that the judgment of the learned Magistrate is relevant for the fact in issue before this Court, however, the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate effecting change in the date of birth in school leaving certificate of the petitioner, where he last studied, is not directing the present respondents to effect change of date of birth in their service record. The judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate heavily relied on by the petitioner is, as such, not relevant for the present fact in issue before the respondent – authority or before this Court. [19.0.] The decision relied on by Mr. Chaudhary, learned advocate, in the case of Basanti Devi (Supra) is out of context. The judgment in that case rendered by the Supreme Court in a probate proceedings where general public notice was required to be issued inviting claims/objections from anyone for issuance of probate, and therefore, the Supreme Court stated that grant of probate is a proceedings in rem. Mr. Chaudhary, learned advocate, has failed to show how in what context it is applicable in the present case. Mr. Chaudhary, learned advocate, has failed to show how in what context it is applicable in the present case. If at all, remotely submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing to effect change in the school leaving certificate to be a judgment in rem, it is erroneous belief. The said judgment of the learned Magistrate may bind the party before it i.e. School Authority, which issued the school leaving certificate, as also the Talati-cum-Mantri of Chachariya Gram Panchayat, who were party respondents in that proceedings. If at all before the learned Magistrate, it would have disclosed that this change of date of birth and change of birth place is required for the purpose of getting his date of birth corrected in the service record rather the learned Magistrate would not have passed that order, more particularly, in absence of present respondents. As such, that attempt was only to get the date of birth changed in school leaving certificate alone. That judgment is not in rem but it is in personam. [20.0.] Second judgment relied on in the case of Sejalben Mukundbhai Patel w/o Khodabhai Joitaram Patel (Supra) before this Court, more particularly para-24, is also misplaced. What was held in that judgment is that the circular issued by the Government cannot override the statutory provisions. The learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to establish that how in what manner the precedent cited by him is applicable to the present case. [21.0.] I see substance in a decision relied on by the respondents- authorities through learned AGP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma in the case of State of M.P. and Ors. Versus Premlal Shrivas reported in 2011 (3) GLH 656 , wherein it is held that belated attempt to get date of birth changed in the service record is to be discouraged. In the said decision the State Financial Code did not prescribe period within which application in effecting change in the date of birth be made and despite that the Supreme Court has held that such application has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the said decision the State Financial Code did not prescribe period within which application in effecting change in the date of birth be made and despite that the Supreme Court has held that such application has to be filed within a reasonable time. However, so far as Gujarat State is concerned, there is a time limit prescribed for seeking change in date of birth in the service record as also an undertaking is also obtained from the employees after due verification of their own documents by the employees that was recorded in the service record is true and correct and he will not claim any change thereof in future. Thus, the attempt made by the petitioner to get his date of birth changed in the service record is not only belated but beyond the limit prescribed by Government Resolution as also against his own undertaking/assurance given by him in Appendix-1 dated 14.12.2005, which is at page-49 of the compilation. [22.0.] The reliance placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Versus Tv. Venugopalan reported in 1994 (6) SCC 302 also requires to be considered. As held in that decision, inordinate delay in making the application for correction of date of birth is itself ground for rejection of the application. [23.0.] In above view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the decision recorded by the respondent authority dated 19.08.2019, which is impugned before this Court. Hence, this petition stands rejected. Notice discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. [24.0.] In view of order passed in this petition, connected Civil application is also disposed of.