Allahabad High Court
Vaibhav Sagar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 10 March, 2016
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 53328 of 2015
Petitioner :- Vaibhav Sagar Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay K. Dwivedi,Komal Mehrotra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Q.H. Siddiqui
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.8.2015, whereby petitioner's application for correction in his date of birth has been rejected.
From the material which appears on record, it transpires that the petitioner was initially offered adhoc appointment on 15.10.1982. The date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned in his service record as 13.4.1956. Petitioner was subsequently regularised on 1.4.1989. Petitioner claims that he made an application some times in the year 2003 for amending his date of birth on the basis of transfer certificate issued of Class-7, in which his date of birth is mentioned as 7.11.1964. It is claimed that this application was not considered and ultimately he filed a writ petition before this Court in the year 2015, which was disposed of on 4.5.2015, requiring the Chief Engineer concerned to consider and decide petitioner's pending representation dated 12.1.2015. It is, in furtherance of this order that the petitioner's claim has been considered and rejected. The order records that under the provisions of U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, the date of birth mentioned in the High School certificate or in its absence the date of birth mentioned in the service record at the time of appointment would be treated to be the basis for recording of date of birth and as the date of birth has been recorded at the time of petitioner's entry into service, any subsequent change, on the basis of transfer certificate of Class-7 can not be relied upon. It has also been recorded that it is after about 12 years, that such claim has been raised, which is not liable to be entertained, particularly, as petitioner's service book had been prepared in 1994 itself and a claim was being raised after 9 years.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
The facts recited in the order of the authority is not under challenge. The only basis for change in the date of birth is the transfer certificate issued to the petitioner for Class-7. In terms of Rules-1974, such materials cannot form any valid basis for correction in the date of birth. It further appears from the record that such claim has been raised after an inordinate delay and the writ petition has been filed only in the year 2015 which is towards the fag end of petitioner's service career. In case the alleged representation of 2003 had not been considered within a reasonable time, petitioner ought to have raised his claim by filing a petition earlier and the delayed attempt on his part to seek amendment in the date of birth at the fag end of his career, is otherwise also not liable to be entertained.
Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.3.2016
n.u.
