Mr Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi was appointed as an unarmed Police Constable on 3.10.1947. At the time of appointment his year of birth was mentioned as 1923. On this basis he was to retire with effect from 1.11.1981 on reaching the age of 58 years. Accordingly, order dated 16.2.1981 was passed by the concerned Authority. It was indicated to him that he would be retiring with effect from 1.11.1981. On receiving the order, he submitted an application for making a change of his date of birth in the service record. According to him, he was born in the year 1928 and not in 1923. Since the prayer was not accepted, he filed a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 30.4.1993 and it was held that the he was to retire in the year 1986 with effect from 1.11.1986. Accordingly, direction was given to the respondents in the writ petition (State of Gujarat) to pay the arrears for the period from 1.11.1981 to 1.11.1986. The HC held that the school-leaving certificate produced by the respondent deserved acceptance and on that basis he ought to have been continued till 1.11.1986. It was observed that the correctness of the school-leaving certificate on which the respondent based his claim was not doubted as no counter affidavit was filed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed.

The legality of this High Court order was questioned by the State of Gujarat in Supreme Court.  In support of the appeal, it was submitted that no reason was assigned by the respondent as to why he requested change of his date of birth after receiving the order relating to his retirement. He joined service in 1947, for nearly 35 years he remained silent. The entry in the service record was made on the basis of his own statement. No materials were adduced to show that there was any error in the date recorded. On mere production of school leaving certificate, authenticity of which was doubtful, the High Court should not have granted a relief. It was pointed out that in the so-called school-leaving certificate no date of birth was indicated and only the year was mentioned. This suspicious circumstance has been completely lost sight of by the High Court.

After considering the above submissions, the SC held:

There are several rules governing request to change the date of birth. One of them is Rule 171 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959. This Rule clearly provides that the request made for alteration of date of birth should not be entertained after the preparation of the service book of the Government servant and in any event not after the completion of the probation period or after 5 years of continuous service whichever was earlier. The said rule categorically provides that once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in the service book, no alteration of the entry afterwards should be allowed unless it is shown that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than individual in question or is an obvious clerical error.

Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records.

Most of the States have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. The sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction, of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades, especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant.

The SC has drawn reference to the earlier judgments in  case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka (1970 Indlaw SC 180), Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagreev Sarma (1990 Indlaw SC 835). In the later case, the public servant concerned had claimed correction of his date of birth with reference to the births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal corrected the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, in view of the entry in the births and deaths register ignoring the rules framed by the State Government referred to above. It was held by the SC as “ a government servant whose date of birth may have been recorded in the service register in accordance with the rules applicable to him and if that entry had become final under the rules prior to the commencement of 1984 Rules, he will not be entitled for alteration of his date of birth."

Further, the SC held:

An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may loose the promotion for ever.

The inevitable conclusion is that the order of learned Single Judge and impugned judgment of the Division Bench affirming it cannot be sustained.

(See 2006-HRIOL-18-SC-SERVICE in 'Laws 4 You')