Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ appeal filed by an appellant challenging the dismissal of his application for alteration of his date of birth by a learned single judge. The appellant contended that he was temporarily appointed to government service on 15.07.2003 and was permanently absorbed only in 2010. He filed an application for altering his date of birth within five years, but the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition. The appellant argued that a birth certificate issued in 2017 should not be considered conclusive proof of his date of birth, as such certificates are based on personal applications. The court noted that the appellant had retired from government service on 30.04.2020, and significant time had elapsed since then. The court expressed concerns that allowing alterations after such a long period could have broader implications. Ultimately, the court confirmed the dismissal of the writ petition and dismissed the appeal, stating that the application was belated and not maintainable (Paras 2-4).
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Writ Appeal - Maintainability of Application - Clause 15 of the Letters Patent - The court dismissed the writ appeal challenging the dismissal of the application for alteration of date of birth, citing the belated nature of the application and the appellant's retirement from service. The court held that allowing such alterations after a significant delay could lead to larger repercussions (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the application for alteration of date of birth was maintainable after retirement and years of delay.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ appeal and confirmed the order made in WP.No.7383 of 2020 dated 29.09.2023, stating that the application was belated and not maintainable due to the appellant's retirement and the significant time elapsed since the original employment.
Law Points
- Writ Appeal
- alteration of date of birth
- belated application
- conclusive proof
- government service retirement
