2014 (2) TMI 39 - HC - Indian Laws

Alteration of date of birth - Rejection of alteration in all service records - Alteration to be applied within 5 years of service - Held that - horoscope is a secondary evidence which cannot be taken as a primary evidence to establish the date of birth of the Government servant. For correction of date of birth unimpeachable evidence must be shown even if the Government servant applied within five years - horoscope is a very weak piece of material to prove the age of a person and that heavy onus lies on the person who wants to press into service to prove its authenticity. The time limit mentioned in Sub Rule (a) of Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules 1953 requiring submission of application seeking correction of date of birth to be made to the State Government through High Court within five years of entry into service is in pari materia to Fundamental Rules - as the petitioner having not applied for alteration of date of birth within 5 years of entry into service in terms of F.R.56 the decision arrived at by the Central Administrative Tribunal is just and proper and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same - Decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting alteration of date of birth in service records.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking alteration of his date of birth in service records. The Tribunal dismissed the application as it was filed on the verge of retirement, not within 5 years of entry into service as required by F.R.56. The petitioner's submission based on a representation to the Income Tax Department was deemed invalid as the date of birth discrepancy was not rectified when entering the Army service. The reliance on a horoscope for a birth certificate from Sri Lanka was also rejected as insufficient evidence.

The Supreme Court's precedent in UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARNAN SINGH emphasized the importance of the date of birth in service records, stating that a government servant must request correction promptly with irrefutable proof. The Court highlighted the need to correct the service record before claiming continued service based on a disputed date of birth. Additionally, the decision in SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER, HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS Vs R.KIRUBAKARAN emphasized the impact of date of birth corrections on promotions and the need for conclusive evidence to justify such changes.

Further, the Supreme Court's ruling in UNION OF INDIA Vs. C.RAMA SWAMY AND OTHERS highlighted the relevance of age in appointments and the potential advantage gained by misrepresenting one's date of birth. The Court stressed the public policy implications of allowing changes to date of birth for extended benefits. The evidentiary value of entries in school records was also discussed in various judgments to establish the authenticity of date of birth.

The Court reiterated that horoscopes are weak evidence for proving age and emphasized the burden of proof on the petitioner to establish the authenticity of such documents. The time limit for seeking correction of date of birth within 5 years of service entry was deemed crucial, following the principles laid down in previous judgments. Based on the Supreme Court precedents and the failure of the petitioner to apply for correction within the stipulated time frame, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the Writ Petition without costs.