[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5205
1 WP-5368-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5368 of 2014
SURESH KUMAR SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Ms. Nidhi Patankar - Advocate for respondent No.4.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"7.1 That, direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to
decide the representation submitted by the petitioner on
03.04.2014 on merits without going into the technicalities and
accordingly his marksheet pertaining to the 11th class and
supplementary marksheet which was issued may kindly be
corrected.
7.2 That, thereafter, respondents No.2 and 3 may kindly be
directed to take appropriate steps for correction of date of birth of
the petitioner in his service book.
7.3 That, any other relief(s) to which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit may also be directed to be extended in favour of the
petitioner in the interest of justice.
7.4 That, the cost of this petition be also awarded to the petitioner.
7.5 The impugned order Annexure P/7 may kindly be quashed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5205
2 WP-5368-2014
being illegal and arbitrary."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
initially appointed on compassionate ground as Lower Division Clerk on
05.05.1990 in the office of the Project Officer, 'Project Karera, Shivpuri
(M.P.). Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of UDC in the year 1997
and presently he is working as an Accountant in the office of respondent
No.3. At the time of appointment, the petitioner submitted relevant
documents before the authority in which he submitted the Higher Secondary
marksheet as well as marksheets of Class 5th and Class 8th. It is further
submitted that earlier petitioner appeared in the examination conducted by
the Board of Secondary Education as a regular student in the year 1983 and
at that time his date of birth was mentioned as 06.02.1965 but unfortunately
he could not succeed in the said examination and his result was proclaimed
declaring him as failed. Thereafter, the petitioner again appeared in the
examination as a private student. At that time on account of certain technical
mistake the marksheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education in the
academic period March April, 1986, the date of birth of the petitioner was
mentioned as 06.02.1964 but immediately thereafter when the objections
were raised it was corrected by the Assistant Secretary, Board of Secondary
Education, Bhopal in the marksheet itself.
3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in
that examination, the petitioner got supplementary and he appeared in the
supplementary examination and in the supplementary examination on
account of earlier technical mistake which was corrected by issuing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5205
3 WP-5368-2014
marksheet Annexure P-3, was not rectified in the record, therefore, the
supplementary marksheet was issued which is having the date of birth as
06.02.1964. Thereafter, on 04.09.1990, petitioner was appointed on
compassionate basis and he has submitted marksheet of Higher Secondary
Examination and other entire documents along-with his joining as per the
requirement. On the basis of date of birth written in the supplementary
marksheet, Annexure P/4, without considering the fact that it was wrong date
of birth of the petitioner, it has been mentioned in his service record as
06.02.1964 and this fact was not informed to the petitioner. Thereafter,
petitioner was discharging his duties continuously with utmost sincerity and
devotion in Education Department. The petitioner was class III employee,
therefore, he was not having any occasion to see his personal file/service
book. In the year 2008, when on account of adding the increment some
dispute was raised, therefore, the petitioner submitted an application before
the higher authorities and also gone through his original service book from
which he found that his date of birth has wrongly been mentioned as
06.02.1964 instead of 1965. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted a
representation/application before Board of Secondary Education for
correction of date of birth. The said application was rejected by the Board of
Secondary Education vide order dated 31.10.2008. Thereafter, petitioner has
submitted a representation before the respondent but the respondent has not
considered the representation.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that
representation of petitioner was rejected on 31.10.2008 and the present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5205
4 WP-5368-2014
petition was filed by the petitioner on 02.09.2014. As per the provision of the
Board of Secondary Education, if certain corrections are required in the
certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, an application has to
be submitted within three years from the date of issuance of certificate.
Admittedly, petitioner had appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination
conducted by the Board of Secondary Education in the year 1986. It is
further submitted that petitioner had joined department of Education as LDC
in the year 1990. Even at that time, the petitioner has not submitted any
application before the Board of Secondary Education. First time, the
petitioner has submitted application/representation for correction in his date
of birth on 19.10.2008 which was rejected on 31.10.2008 and if the delay
part from the year 1986 is ignored then also from 2008 onwards petitioner
was sleeping silent over the matter and all of a sudden for the reasons best
known to himself the present writ petition has been preferred on 02.09.2014
is liable to be dismissed with cost as a litigant who approaches for redress of
his grievances has to come before the Court of law with clean heart and
clean mind and in proper limitation.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The case of Manish Tyagi Vs. The Board of Secondary Education
and Ors. vide order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.No.9150/2018 is not applicable in the present case as in that
case, the petitioner had appeared in the examinations conducted in the years
2007 and 2009 but in the present case, the petitioner cleared the examination
in the year 1986. However, for the first time, he submitted an application
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5205
5 WP-5368-2014
seeking correction of his date of birth only on 19.10.2008, i.e., after an
inordinate delay of more than two decades. The said representation was
rejected by order dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure R/1). Thereafter, the petitioner
again remained inactive and filed the present petition only on 02.09.2014,
nearly four years after the rejection of his representation.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh
and Ors. Vs. Premlal Shrivas reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 , in paragraphs 11
to 18, has held as under:
"11. Viewed in this perspective, we are of the opinion that the
High Court committed a manifest error of law in ignoring the vital
fact that the respondent had applied for correction of his date of
birth in 1990 i.e. 25 years after his induction into service as a
constable. It is evident from the record that the respondent was
aware ever since 1965 that his date of birth as 9 recorded in the
service book is 1-6-1942 and not 30-6-1945. It had come on
record of the Tribunal that at the time of the respondent's medical
examination, his age as on 27-9-1965 was mentioned to be 23
years and his father's name was recorded as Gayadin; and in his
descriptive roll, prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police
as well, his father's name was shown as Gayadin and his date of
birth as 1-6-1942 and this document was signed by the respondent
and the form of agreement known as "Mamuli Sipahi Ka a
Ikrarnama" was filled up by the respondent himself with the very
same particulars. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decision of
the Tribunal rejecting the respondent's plea that it was for the first
time in the year 1990, when he was promoted as Head Constable,
that he noticed the error in the service record, was vitiated.
12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two
decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie
fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that
there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing
the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite
that even in such a situation such an application should be filed
which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the
respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no
standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5205
6 WP-5368-2014
attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no
substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the
M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within
which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound
to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the
service book.
13. Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code, heavily relied upon by the
respondent reads as under:
"84. Every person newly appointed to a service or a post
under the Government should at the time of the
appointment declare the date of his birth by the
Christian era with as far as possible confirmatory
documentary evidence such as a matriculation
certificate, municipal birth certificate and so on. If the
exact date is not known, an approximate date may be
given. The actual date or the assumed date determined
under Rule 85 should be recorded in the history of
service; service book or any other record that may be
kept in respect of the government servant's service
under the Government. The date of birth, once recorded
in this manner, must be deemed to be absolutely
conclusive, and except in the case of a clerical error no
revision of such a declaration shall be allowed to be
made at a later period for any purpose whatever."
14. It is manifest from a bare reading of Rule 84 of the M.P.
Financial Code that the date of birth recorded in the service book
at the time of entry into service is conclusive and binding on the
government servant. It is clear that the said Rule has been made in
order to limit the scope of correction of date of birth in the service
record. However, an exception has been carved out in the Rule,
permitting the public servant to request later for correcting his age
provided that incorrect recording of age is on account of a clerical
error or mistake. This is a salutary rule, which was, perhaps,
inserted with a view to safeguard the interest of employees so that
they do not suffer because of the mistakes committed by the
official staff. Obviously, only that clerical error or mistake would
fall within the ambit of the said Rule which is caused due to the
negligence or want of proper care on the part of some person
other than the employee seeking correction. Onus is on the
employee concerned to prove such negligence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5205
7 WP-5368-2014
15. In Commr: of Police v. Bhagwan V. Lahane this Court has
held that a for an employee seeking the correction of his date of
birth, it is a condition precedent that he must show, that the
incorrect recording of the date of birth was made due to
negligence of some other person, or that the same was an obvious
clerical error failing which the relief should not be granted to him.
16. Again, in Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy it has been
observed that a bona fide error would normally be one where an
officer has indicated a particular date of birth in his application
form or any other document at the time of his employment but, by
mistake or oversight a different date has been recorded.
17. As aforesaid, in the instant case, no evidence has been placed
on record by the respondent to show that the date of birth recorded
as 1-6-1942 was due to the negligence of some other person. He
had failed to show that the date of birth was recorded incorrectly,
due to want of care on the part of some other person, despite the
fact that a correct date of birth had been shown on the documents
presented or signed by him. We hold that in this fact situation the
High Court ought not to have directed the appellants to correct the
date of birth of the respondent under Rule 84 of the said Rules.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the decision of the High
Court, holding that the respondent was entitled to get his date of
birth corrected in the service record, cannot be sustained.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is
set aside, leaving the parties to bear their own costs throughout."
8. Further, in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, AIR 1993 SC 1367 , the following
principles have been laid down :
"A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right
to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the
State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service,
unless the services are dispersed with on other grounds contained
in the relevant service rules after following the procedure
prescribed therein. The date o f birth entered in the service records
of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that
right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5205
8 WP-5368-2014
service record. A Government servant who has declared his age at
the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded
from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to
a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in
possession of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as
different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no
period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of
birth, the Government servant must do so without any
unreasonable delay. In the absence of any provision in the rules
for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing
relief on grounds of latches or stale claims, is generally applied to
by the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the
Government to fix a time limit, in the service rules, after which no
application for correction of date of birth o f a Government
servant can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an
application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so
fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction
of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that
the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of
limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its
rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those
who sleep over their rights and allowed the period of limitation to
expire. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would
determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to
abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual
age."
9. In the case of State of Assam Vs. Daksha Prasad Deka, AIR 1971
SC 173, so also in the light of law laid down in the case of Visakhapatnam
Dock Labour Board Vs. E. Atchanna, (1996) 2 SCC 484 wherein it is held
that in the controversy relating to the date of birth, it is the service record
which has primacy and superannuation etc. will be determined on the basis
of service record and not on what the employee claims to be his date of birth
unless the service record is first corrected in conformity with the appropriate
procedure.
10. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Gulaichi, AIR 2003 SC 4209 , it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5205
9 WP-5368-2014
has been held that correction of the date of birth as recorded in the service
book should not normally be done on the verge of retirement since any such
correction might adversely affect the chances of promotion of those junior to
him.
11. In the case of Secretary & Commissioner, Home Department Vs.
R. Kirubakaran, AIR 1993 SC 2647, it has been held that the onus of proving
that there is a mistake which needs to be corrected is on the employee who
asserts so. It is further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when the dispute
is raised on the eve of superannuation, the Court or Tribunal must be slow in
granting interim relief for continuation in service unless prima facie evidence
of unimpeachable character is produced.
12. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. S.C. Chadha, (2004) 3 SCC 394 ,
it is held that unexplained delay in making an application coupled with
absence of any contemporaneous documentary evidence to show the
recorded date to be wrong will disentitle the employee to correct of the
recorded date.
13. In other words, an application for correction of date of birth should
be made within some reasonable time. In the present case, there is delay of
28 years in lodging the claim.
14. As far as judgment rendered by Full Bench of Supreme Court in
Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) Vs. Central
Board of Secondary Education and others (2021) 7 SCC 535 is concerned it
is evident that it is in regard to change of one's name because the judgment
deals with control of one's name and freedom to modify or change one's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5205
10 WP-5368-2014
name at any given point of time and does not deal with change of date of
birth at any given point of time, therefore, the judgment rendered by
Supreme Court in Jigya Yadav (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner.
15. When tested on the aforesaid touchstone, no illegality can be
attributed to the authorities in refusing the claim of the petitioner regarding
correction of his date of birth.
16. Petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
