Smt. Kavita Kureel vs State Of U P And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 2779 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Kavita Kureel vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 1 February, 2024

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:17113-DB
 
Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 828 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Kavita Kureel
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Mukul Yadav,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rama Nand Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

1. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant whereby the petitioner had sought correction in her date of birth. In the High School Certificate the date of birth of the appellant was mentioned as 3.11.1960. Relying upon this certificate the petitioner joined the service in 2006. The petitioner subsequently moved an application for correction in the High School Certificate and the same came to be allowed by the Board in the year 2021. As per corrected certificate the date of birth of the appellant is 3.11.1967. Based upon such corrected date of birth the petitioner appellant sought correction in the date of birth recorded in the service book. This prayer, however, has been rejected by the authorities. The writ petition filed against such order has also been rejected. Thus aggrieved the appellant is before this Court.

2. Before adverting to the argument advanced by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of appellant, it would be worth noticing that the correction in the date of birth was permissible in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment to Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974. The rules were amended on 7.6.1980.

3. Learned Single Judge in para 31 has noticed the pre-amended and amended rules which were subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri reported in (2005) 11 SCC 465. Para 31 of the judgment is reproduced:-

"31. Respondents No.3 and 4 have relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 465. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the aforesaid case are extracted as under:-

"It is thus seen from the above quoted judgments that this Court has consistently taken the view that correction in entries made in Government records on the basis of which the Government servant got the service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before retirement or at the fag end of his retirement.

17. In the instant case, the U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules came into force w.e.f. 28.05.1974. Rule 2 of the Rule was amended by the first amendment Rules, 1980 of 07.06.1980. The existing rule and the substituted rule are extracted herein below:

COLUMN 1

(Existing rule)

COLUMN 2

(Rule as hereby substituted)

"2. The date of birth of Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination, or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into Government service, shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to his service including, eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever."

2. The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government service or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to his service, including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever.

As per the existing rule, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever.

18. The amended rule of 1980 was deemed to have come into force w.e.f 28.05.1974 and as per the substituted Rule, the date of birth or the age recorded in the service book at the time of entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes and that no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of date of birth or age in any circumstances whatsoever. The respondent has given his date of birth as 30.07.1941 at the time of entry into service which has also been recorded in the service records of the respondent. The above amended rule which come into force w.e.f. 28.05.1974 stipulates that no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever and that the date of birth or age recorded in the service book at the time of his entry into government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age as the case may be for all purposes.

19. In view of the above rule, we hold that the correct date of birth of the respondent is only 30.07.1941 and the claim now made by the respondent to correct his date of birth from 30.07.1941 to 16.10.1945 cannot at all be entertained or encouraged."

4. Relying upon the above provision, learned Single Judge has held that the date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate at the time of entry into service alone would determine the date of birth of an employee and any subsequent change therein would not constitute any basis for correction in the date of birth.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact the correction in the date of birth was already allowed prior to the joining of service by the appellant. A provisional certificate of High School has been relied upon as per which the date of birth was 3.11.1967. This certificate is stated to have been issued in 1983. Reliance is placed upon this certificate by the appellant to contend that the date of birth stood recorded as 3.11.1967 in the High School Certificate prior to date of entry of appellant into service and, therefore, this date of birth ought to have been relied upon and incorporated in service records. It is argued that merely because a formal certificate was issued later in 2021 would not be to the detriment of the cause of the appellant.

6. Learned State Counsel on the other hand opposes the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant.

7. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant in the present appeal is that in the provisional certificate of High School, issued in 1983, the date of birth already stood recorded as 3.11.1967. We are not inclined to endorse any importance to the provisional certificate, inasmuch as, the certificate which is referred to in the Rules of 1974, would be the High School Certificate. It is admitted that the High School Certificate issued by the Board recorded the date of birth of the appellant as 3.11.1960. Whether or not a provisional certificate shows a different date of birth would thus not be determinative on the cause raised herein. It is otherwise admitted that the Board actually corrected date of birth in the High School Certificate in the year 2021. The argument that the date of birth already stood corrected in 1983 would go contrary to the appellant's own case as per which the High School Certificate came to be corrected in the year 2021. It is otherwise apparent that the date of birth in the High School Certificate at the time of joining the service would be the relevant date to be recorded in the service book. The amendment which has been introduced in the Rules of 1980 clearly determines the legal position as per which any subsequent change in the High School Certificate cannot be relied upon for effecting change in the service book of the employee concerned. We find that the learned Single Judge has correctly applied the provision of law in the facts of the present case.

8. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.2.2024

Ranjeet Sahu