This petition challenges the rejection of a request to correct the petitioner's date of birth from 1964 to 1969 after superannuation. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the long, unexplained delay and lack of conclusive evidence preclude interference with the service record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75571
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10616 of 2024
Petitioner :- Shiv Ji Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Durga Prasad,Ravi Chakravarty Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
his appointment i.e. 16.12.1984 the petitioner would be only 11 years of age while the minimum age for recruitment is 18 years. Accordingly, if the respondents were to accept the contention of the petitioner then his very selection and appointment would be under cloud in as much as a person below the age of 18 years of age would not be permitted to join his duties nor could have he been permitted to appear in the selection process.
service is not sustainable. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble [State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 582] wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder : (SCC pp. 428-29, paras 16-17 & 19)
“16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 96] . In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.
17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106] relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment [Pitamber Dutt Semwal v. State of U.P., 1999 SCC OnLine All 1610 : 2000 All LJ 2341] of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades.
***
19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the Court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran [Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449] reads as under : (SCC pp. 158-59, para 7)
‘7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service]. 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 lose their promotions forever. … According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date
of birth. As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. … the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book.’”
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 18.11.2024 RKM.
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the request for correction of date of birth at the end of service should be allowed given the unexplained delay and lack of conclusive evidence.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the date of birth recorded as of 1964 after being superannuated in favor of 1969.
If the impugned order rejecting the correction application is sustainable in light of prior Supreme Court precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore SinghReferred¶14
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram KambleReferred¶15
State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 582 · Who else cites this
U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar AgnihotriReferred¶16
U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465 · Who else cites this
State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt SemwalReferred¶17
State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477 · Who else cites this
Home Deptt. v. R. KirubakaranReferred¶19
Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 · Who else cites this
Shiv Ji Singh
State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko
Alok Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
