Public Employment Rules Don't Permit Alteration In Date Of Birth In Service Records, Estoppel Operates Against Employee: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has dismissed the claim of a retired Munsif for alteration of date of birth in Service Record, holding that alteration of date of birth based on any judgment, decree, or order of a Civil Court is impermissible under the AP Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 and no indulgence can be shown.

'This Court is of the opinion that the application for change of date of birth made by the petitioner cannot be considered. Rules, 1984 do not permit for alteration of the date of birth entered in the service records. The entries made by the employee are final and binding and the employee is estopped from disputing the correctness of the date of birth. Rules do not permit alteration of date of birth on the basis of any judgement, decree or order of a Civil Court and no indulgence can be shown,' the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti held.

The petitioner sought that the Division Bench may set aside the order passed by the High Court in 2012, rejecting his case for alteration of date of birth and recording his date of birth as 29.05.1953 instead of 01.07.1949. Consequently, he prayed that his date of birth may be altered.

To assist the Bench, Senior Counsel Vivek Reddy was appointed as Amicus Curiae for respondents.

The petitioner contended that he applied for the post of District Munsif in 1983 and was selected for the post in 1985. He stated that in his application he mistakenly mentioned his date of birth as 01-07-1949. He filed a suit before the District Munsif for alteration of date of birth, and the suit was decreed in his favour and when the service register was opened, his date of birth was entered as 1953 by the then Principal District Judge, based on the court decree.

Subsequently, in 1988, the Government of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh issued a G.O. directing to make necessary corrections in the Higher Secondary Leaving Certificate (HSLC) Register. The change of date of birth was carried out.

In 1989 the petitioner made an application before the High Court through the District Judge, Srikakulam to rectify his date of birth in all records. The matter was placed before an Administrative Committee of Judges and the Committee in 1997 held that the Court decree did not inspire confidence and rejected the claim of the petitioner. A writ was filed challenging the order which was allowed. An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, wherein the Court directed the High Court to dispose of the matter in accordance with Rule 2 of the AP Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Birth) Rules within 4 months.

Rule 2 stipulates the procedure that is to be followed in recording the date of a public employee. By the procedure, the petitioner was issued notice and summoned to appear before a High Court judge along with all documents and was required to prove his claim. The petitioner appeared and made his case, however the Judge found that the claim of the petitioner could not be accepted. Accordingly, he submitted a report to the Administrative Committee and the judges rejected the claim of the petitioner. Challenging the said dismissal, the present writ was filed.

Rules 2A of the 1984 Rules stipulate that no civil court decree could be taken into consideration while deciding the matter of date of birth. The counsel on behalf of the petitioner contended that since the decree of the court was passed prior to the correction of the register, the bar in Rule 2-A would be inapplicable in the present case. He further contended that the parents of the petitioner were illiterates, and mistakenly entered the date of birth of the petitioner as 1949. Moreover, since the Civil Court decree remained unchallenged, it had attained finality.

The Amicus Curie submitted that the petitioner had not furnished any documents in furtherance of his claim, and additionally, submitted that if the claim of the petitioner was accepted, it meant that he completed his 12^th grade at the age of 14-15, 2 years ahead of the standard time.

The Bench perused the report submitted by the High Court judge and held that the committee had thoroughly analysed the issue and come to the conclusion that the petitioner could not have completed his schooling as per standard time if his date of birth was believed as 1953. It was also noted that no document was submitted to prove that the petitioner received a double promotion in school.

The Division Bench also perused the application and noted that the petitioner had not only noted his date of birth as 1949 but had also noted the years of passing various boards of education as per the original HSSLC records.

“The petitioner is now contending that date of birth is 29th March 1953, contrary to what he has shown in the application. This is an important aspect which this Court cannot lose sight of while examining the issue of alteration of date of birth.”

The Court further noted that the civil court decree was contradictory and failed to address the issue from a proper perspective. It was also noted that despite the order of the Court, the petitioner had not made any attempt to rectify his date of birth either in the school records nor the HSSLC records.

Nonetheless, relying upon Home Deptt v. R. Kirubakaran and Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P Natraja & Ors, the Bench reiterated that 'correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right.'

“Entertaining the claim for correction of date of birth would completely frustrate the objective behind the Rules, 1984. The petitioner is unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of this Court either in law or on facts about the claim for alteration of date of birth. In view of the consistent legal position that the onus is on the applicant to prove about the wrong recording of the date of birth in the service records, the claim for the alteration cannot be entertained. It is settled law that “correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right.”

Case no.: W.P. 26262 of 2012

Counsel for petitioner: Senior Counsel, M, Surender Rao

Counsel for respondents: V. Uma Devi, SC for High Court for the State of Telangana

Amicus Curiae, Senior Counsel K. Vivek Reddy

Click Here To Read/Download Order