High Court of Meghalaya
Smti. Kloraris @ Klolaris Marthong vs State Of Meghalaya on 20 March, 2024
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
Serial No. 28
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 16 of 2023 Date of Decision: 20.03.2024
Smti. Kloraris @ Klolaris Marthong
W/o (L) R. Horoo
H. No. 91, Rngi Rum, Lawjynriew
P.O. & P.S. Nongthymmai
District, East Khasi Hills ::::Petitioner
-Vs-
1.State of Meghalaya, represented by
The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya,
at Shillong
2.Managing Director, MTDC at Shillong
3.Chief General Manager, MTDC Ltd. ::::Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Borah, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA(For R 1)
Mr. S. Sen, Adv. (For R 2 & 3).
1
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The writ petitioner is before this Court with a prayer for rectification
or correction of her date of birth in her service record, on the basis of the
Birth Certificate, issued by the Shillong Municipal Board.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner entered service with
the respondents No. 2 and 3 w.e.f. 08.09.1986, and her date of birth, as per
her application was entered as 14.12.1964. The said date of birth was also
accordingly entered in the service book and the date of superannuation was
also recorded therein, as 31.12.2022. The petitioner it appears after
11(eleven) years of service on 16.08.1999, submitted a school certificate
dated 03.03.1985, which did not specify her date of birth, but only showed
that her age was 18 years 4 months and 10 days. Thereafter, the petitioner
submitted a Birth Certificate, dated 01.11.2017, issued under the
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, by the Registrar thereof, indicating
her date of birth as 23.02.1967. The petitioner then by a petition dated
04.03.2021, prayed that the documents submitted by her for correction of
date of birth be allowed to be withdrawn, and that her date of birth by
calculation from the school certificate should be 22.08.1966. Thereafter, by
another letter dated 28.07.2021, the petitioner stated that her date of birth
was 21.08.1966. Another Birth Certificate dated 08.03.2022, was then
submitted by the petitioner, showing her date of birth as 21.08.1966, and
followed up the same with a letter dated 08.12.2022, seeking correction of
her date of birth. These representations were rejected by the respondents on
23.12.2022, citing the reasons that the same could not be entertained, in
view of the multiple conflicting dates of birth, and the documents
submitted, had given rise to doubts as to the correctness of the date of birth,
and also that, the request for change of date of birth was highly belated, and
made at the fag end of her career.
3. Mr. P.K. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
representations and furnishing of the date of birth of the petitioner were all
done bonafide, as the petitioner was not aware that in her service book, her
date of birth had been shown as 14.12.1964, at the time of entering service.
It is also submitted that, to correct the same, the petitioner had applied for
issuance of a Birth Certificate from the competent authority, which was
then issued, but as the date recorded therein was wrong, the petitioner had
to approach the Court again for correction, and as such, the same has
resulted in two Birth Certificates, being issued with different dates. The
learned counsel then submits that, after obtaining the said correct
certificate, the petitioner then submitted the same to respondent No. 2 on
08.12.2022, praying for necessary correction. It is finally submitted that,
the errors cannot be attributed to any laches on her part, and that the same
was occasioned by circumstances beyond her control. Learned counsel in
support of his arguments has relied upon the case of Hampong Phom vs.
State of Nagaland & Ors. reported in 2004 (Suppl.) GLT 577, wherein it
was held that, the petitioner therein having placed materials justifying his
claim, as regard to his date of birth and that the date as recorded in his
service record was due to overwriting, and also the non-denial of the school
certificate, was entitled to relief, as claimed.
4. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3, has
taken the Court through the sequence of documents filed by the writ
petitioner, and has highlighted the fact that, the writ petitioner had provided
conflicting dates of birth, and at the time which she submitted the school
certificate in 1999, on which heavy reliance has been placed upon by the
petitioner, no prayer was made for the change of date of birth. He submits
that, it was only in 2021 and 2022, on the eve of her retirement that the
petitioner agitated her case for change of date of birth. The learned counsel
has also taken the Court to the Epic Card, PAN Card and Aadhaar Card of
the writ petitioner, which has been filed by way of an affidavit, wherein the
date of birth has been recorded as 23.02.1967, and not as 21.08.1966, as
claimed by the writ petitioner. It is contended that, it was in these
circumstances that, apart from the delay, the prayer for change of date of
birth was rejected by the respondents. Learned counsel has also placed two
decisions in support of his arguments namely.
(i) Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited vs. T.P.
Nataraja & Ors. reported in (2021) 12 SCC 27.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 30.07.2019, passed in WP(C) No.
143 of 2016, (Shri Biswanath Singh vs. State of Meghalaya &
Ors.)
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is to be noted at
the outset that, the change in the date of birth is not a matter of right, even
when cogent evidence is available, and the same can be rejected on
grounds of delay/laches, especially when made at the fag end of service, or
when the employee was about to retire. In the instant case, the writ
petitioner actively sought correction of a date of birth on 08.12.2022, after
the last birth certificate was issued to her on 09.03.2022, showing date of
birth as 21.08.1966. From the documents appended to the writ petition,
starting from the application for the post of Chambermaid, and the service
book extract itself, it is seen that the petitioner's date of birth was recorded
as 14.12.1964. Thereafter, on subsequent applications, different dates were
given by the first Birth Certificate dated 01.12.2017 to be 23.02.1967, and
by the second Birth Certificate dated 09.03.2022 to be 21.08.1966, which
has naturally created a confusion, coupled with her reliance on her school
certificate. What is more intriguing however, is the fact that, in the Epic
Card, PAN Card and Aadhaar Card, her date of birth is shown as
23.02.1967. This Court notes that even in the affidavit appended to the writ
petition, which was sworn on 08.02.2023, the writ petitioner has shown her
age to be about 58 years. All these facts put together, cannot in any manner
convince this Court, therefore to come to any finding as to the correctness
of the claim of the petitioner. Furthermore, the prayer for correction of age
being made at the fag end of her career, the same also fails on account of
delay. The case relied upon by the petitioner being on a different footing,
the same will not be applicable in the instant case.
6. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no
interference is called for, and the writ petition being devoid of any merit is
dismissed.
Judge
Meghalaya
20.03.2024
"D.Thabah-PS"
