Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned correction of date of birth in government service records. The respondent was selected as a Sub-Inspector and sent for training on July 15, 1974, and upon successful completion was appointed and gained entry into service on July 1, 1976. At the time of entry, he produced his Secondary School Leaving Certificate, which recorded his date of birth as November 12, 1948, and that date was entered in his service book. Later, Rule 36 of Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, which repealed earlier orders and came into force on August 15, 1981, provided that once an entry of age or date of birth is made in a service book, it shall not be altered unless it is shown that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual or is an obvious clerical error. Instructions issued under that rule stated that normally no application for alteration of date of birth as recorded in the service book should be entertained after five years from entry into government service, and that correct date may be determined on proof such as the government servant's own statement, school leaving certificate, matriculation certificate, university certificate, birth or baptismal register extract, horoscope, or family records. In 1982, the respondent applied for correction of his date of birth, claiming his correct date was June 6, 1951, and that the service register wrongly recorded November 12, 1948. His representation was rejected in 1983. In 1991, he filed Original Application No.1511 of 1991 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted his case and by order dated October 6, 1992 directed the appellant Commissioner of Police to correct the date of birth. The appellants appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court; delay was condoned and leave was granted. The Supreme Court examined the factual material. The respondent admittedly produced the Secondary School Leaving Certificate at entry, showing November 12, 1948. He ought to have produced reliable material to show that the birth date mentioned in the school certificate was incorrect, but no such material was produced. The extract from the birth register produced with his representation was inconsistent with the school certificate. The Court observed that ordinarily a child is not given a name before birth; in a birth register entry only sex is mentioned, and after naming ceremony the name is given. It was highly doubtful that the respondent's parents, who were villagers and illiterate, had named him before or on the day of his birth. The explanation that his elder brother named Bhagwan was born on November 12, 1949 and died on November 26, 1949, so the respondent's birth date could not be November 12, 1948, was not convincing. The further explanation that after the elder brother's death the parents decided to call him by the same name was also not believable, and if that were so, the parents would not have committed a mistake in giving his birth date to the school authorities despite being illiterate. The Court noted that it appeared the respondent got the entry in the birth register corrected and produced a copy, but once it was doubtful, the authorities were right in not correcting the service book entry. The Court applied Rule 36 and held that the service book entry made on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate could not be altered because the respondent failed to show that the entry was made due to want of care on the part of some other person or was an obvious clerical error. The Tribunal erred in directing correction. The appeal was allowed, the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was set aside, and Original Application No.1511 of 1991 was dismissed. In the circumstances, there was no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Date of Birth Correction - Rule 36, Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Service book entry cannot be altered after five years unless want of care by another or obvious clerical error - Respondent's service book date of birth was recorded as November 12, 1948 based on Secondary School Leaving Certificate; his 1982 application for correction was rejected; Tribunal directed correction without finding clerical error - Held that Tribunal erred and the entry could not be altered (Not mentioned). B) Evidence - Proof of Age - Secondary School Leaving Certificate - School certificate produced at entry is relevant and authoritative; a later birth register extract inconsistent with it is insufficient without proof that name was given before or soon after birth and entered at registration - The birth register extract was doubtful because parents were illiterate villagers and ordinarily a child is not named before birth; respondent's explanation about elder brother's death and reuse of name was unconvincing - Held that SSLC prevails and no reliable material disproved it (Not mentioned). C) Administrative Law - Judicial Review of Tribunal Order - Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal - Tribunal's direction to correct date of birth was erroneous in absence of statutory grounds under Rule 36 - Supreme Court's appellate review reversed the Tribunal's order and dismissed the original application - Held appeal allowed, OA dismissed, no costs (Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal correctly directed correction of the respondent's date of birth in the service book despite the absence of proof that the original entry was due to want of care on the part of a person other than the employee or an obvious clerical error, as required by Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, and whether a later birth register extract could override the Secondary School Leaving Certificate produced at entry.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal set aside; OA No.1511 of 1991 dismissed; no costs.
Law Points
- Rule 36 of Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules
- 1981
- service book entry of date of birth cannot be altered absent proof of want of care by another or obvious clerical error
- normally no application for alteration after five years
- Secondary School Leaving Certificate is relevant proof of age
- birth register extract inconsistent and uncorroborated cannot displace it
