Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh against a High Court order that directed the correction of the respondent's date of birth in his service record. The respondent, a Police Constable appointed in 1965, had his date of birth recorded as 1st June 1942, which he later sought to change to 30th June 1945, claiming the original entry was based on incorrect information provided by his maternal grandfather. His initial request for correction in 1990 was rejected, leading him to approach the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, which also dismissed his application. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which ruled in his favor. The State appealed, arguing that the High Court erred in allowing the change after such a long delay, citing Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code, which states that the recorded date of birth is conclusive unless a clerical error is proven. The Supreme Court found that the respondent had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim of a clerical error and that the delay in seeking correction was unreasonable. The court held that the High Court's decision could not be sustained, leading to the appeal's allowance and the High Court's order being set aside, with costs borne by the parties.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Correction of Date of Birth - Delay in Application - Rule 84 of M.P. Financial Code, 1956 - The court emphasized that corrections to a government servant's date of birth should be approached with caution, especially when requested after a long delay. The respondent's application for correction, made 25 years post-induction, was deemed unreasonable, and the High Court's order was set aside. Held that the delay was fatal to the respondent's claim (Paras 9-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the correction of the respondent's date of birth in the service record after a significant delay.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and ruled that the respondent's application for correction of date of birth was unreasonable due to the delay of 25 years.
Law Points
- Correction of service record
- date of birth
- conclusive evidence
- clerical error
- delay in application
