1996 JTR(SC) 2001
1997 AIR(SC) 1986 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1760 ; 1997 1 AllCJ 270 ; 1997 4 ALT(SC) 25 ; 1997 2 LLN 974 ; 1996 9 Scale 22 ; 1997 1 SCC 247 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 719 ; 1996 Supp9 SCR 199 ; 1997 2 SLJ 83 ; 1996 6 SLR 633 ; 1997 KHC 650 ; 1997 6 Supreme 326
1997(6) Supreme 326
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
The Commissioner of Police Bombay & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Bhagwan V. Lahane -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 15432 of 1996
Decided on 26-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants: G.B. Sethi, and D.M. Nargolkar, Advocates.
For the Respondent: A.M. Khanwilkar, Advocate.
Act
Referred
:MAHARASHTRA CIVIL SERVICES GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE RULES : R.36
MAHARASHTRA CIVIL SERVICES RULES : R.36
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The relevant statutory framework under the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, particularly Rule 36, governs the correction of date of birth entries in service records. Rule 36 stipulates that once an entry is made, it cannot be altered unless proven to be due to carelessness by another party or an obvious clerical error. Furthermore, it mandates that any application to correct such an entry must be made within five years of service entry, with permissible proof including school or university certificates and other specified documents. These provisions directly apply to the present appeal where the respondent sought to alter his date of birth entry based on a Secondary School Leaving Certificate, a document recognized under the rules.
(B) Key legal principles include the presumption of correctness of service records, the strict adherence to the five-year limitation for corrections, the requirement of conclusive proof to override an original entry, and the high threshold for proving clerical errors. The case underscores that retrospective corrections are disfavored unless compelling evidence is presented.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was selected as a Sub-Inspector in 1974 and appointed in 1976, with his date of birth entered as November 12, 1948, based on his Secondary School Leaving Certificate. In 1982, he applied to correct this to June 6, 1951, which was rejected in 1983. He subsequently filed a special leave petition in 1991 challenging the rejection.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal had accepted the respondent's case and directed the correction of his date of birth. The higher court, however, found that the respondent failed to prove that the original entry was erroneous or due to another's carelessness, as the School Leaving Certificate itself was the basis for the initial entry and no contradictory material was provided at the time.
Issues:
Whether the respondent was entitled to correction of his date of birth after the prescribed five-year period and on the basis of the same document that originally led to the entry, and whether the Tribunal erred in directing the correction without sufficient proof of clerical error.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that in the absence of evidence demonstrating the original entry was caused by carelessness of another or was an obvious clerical error, and given the failure to present new credible proof, the authorities were correct in rejecting the correction, thereby affirming the finality of the original service record entry.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is dismissed, and no costs are awarded.
(A) The relevant statutory framework under the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, particularly Rule 36, governs the correction of date of birth entries in service records. Rule 36 stipulates that once an entry is made, it cannot be altered unless proven to be due to carelessness by another party or an obvious clerical error. Furthermore, it mandates that any application to correct such an entry must be made within five years of service entry, with permissible proof including school or university certificates and other specified documents. These provisions directly apply to the present appeal where the respondent sought to alter his date of birth entry based on a Secondary School Leaving Certificate, a document recognized under the rules.
(B) Key legal principles include the presumption of correctness of service records, the strict adherence to the five-year limitation for corrections, the requirement of conclusive proof to override an original entry, and the high threshold for proving clerical errors. The case underscores that retrospective corrections are disfavored unless compelling evidence is presented.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was selected as a Sub-Inspector in 1974 and appointed in 1976, with his date of birth entered as November 12, 1948, based on his Secondary School Leaving Certificate. In 1982, he applied to correct this to June 6, 1951, which was rejected in 1983. He subsequently filed a special leave petition in 1991 challenging the rejection.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal had accepted the respondent's case and directed the correction of his date of birth. The higher court, however, found that the respondent failed to prove that the original entry was erroneous or due to another's carelessness, as the School Leaving Certificate itself was the basis for the initial entry and no contradictory material was provided at the time.
Issues:
Whether the respondent was entitled to correction of his date of birth after the prescribed five-year period and on the basis of the same document that originally led to the entry, and whether the Tribunal erred in directing the correction without sufficient proof of clerical error.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that in the absence of evidence demonstrating the original entry was caused by carelessness of another or was an obvious clerical error, and given the failure to present new credible proof, the authorities were correct in rejecting the correction, thereby affirming the finality of the original service record entry.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is dismissed, and no costs are awarded.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, made on October 6, 1992 in OA No. 1511 of 1991. The respondent was selected as a Sub-Inspector and sent for training on July 15, 1974. On successful competition thereof, he was appointed and gained entry into the service on July 1, 1976. As per Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, the Rules ) which repealed earlier orders and came into force on 15.8.1981 would indicate that once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in a service book, the same shall not be altered afterwards unless it is shown that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual in question or that it is an obvious clerical error. Instructions have been issued in that behalf which reads as under:
"Instruction-(1) Normally, no application for alternation of the entry regarding date of birth as recorded in the service book or service roll of a Government servant should be entertained after a period of five years commencing from the date of his entry in Government service.
(2) subject to (1) above, the correct date of birth of a Government servant may be determined, if he furnishes a proof of age in any of the following terms :
(a) His own statement or that of a parent, guardian, friend or relative;
(b) School leaving certificate, secondary school certificate examination/Matriculation certificate or University certificate;
(c) Extract from a birth or baptismal register;
(d) Horoscope;
(e) Entry in family records or accounts books."
3. The respondent made an application in 1982 for the correction of his date of birth on the ground that his correct date of birth was June 6, 1951 and it was wrongly entered in the service register as November 12, 1948. It appears that the representation was rejected in 1983. He filed the OA in 1991 for the correction of the date of birth. The Tribunal in the impugned order, accepting the case of the respondent, has directed the appellant to correct the date of birth. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. It is not in dispute that the respondent had produced Secondary School Leaving Certificate which contains his date of birth as November 12, 1948. One of the instructions indicates that his own statement or that of a parent, guardian, friend or relative on the date of entry in service and also the High School Leaving Certificate, Secondary School Certificate Examination, Matriculation Certificate or University Certificate, is the relevant document for that purpose. The respondent, admittedly, filed his Secondary School Leaving Certificate at the time of entry into service on the basis of which his date of birth was reflected in the service register as November 12, 1948. The respondent ought to have produced the reliable material to show that the birth date mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate was incorrect. No such material was produced by him. The extract from birth register produced by him along with his representation being inconsistent with the School Leaving Certificate produced by him earlier, he ought to have proved to the satisfaction of the competent authority that he was given a name before or soon after his birth and that his name was entered in the birth register at the time of registration of his birth, ordinarily, a child is not given a name before birth and in the entry in birth register only sex, viz., male or female would be mentioned. After naming ceremony, the name is given. It is, therefore, highly doubtful if the parents of the respondent who were villagers and illiterate had named the appellant either before or on the day of his birth. The explanation given now on behalf of the respondent that his elder brother, who was named Bhagwan, was born on 12.11.1949 and died on 26.11.1949 and, therefore, his birth date cannot be 12.11.1948 is also not convincing. His further explanation that as his elder brother died, his parents thought of calling him by the same name is also not believable. Moreover, if that was so, his parents would not have committed a mistake in giving his birth date to the School authorities even though they were illiterate. It appears that he got the entry in the birth register corrected, then obtained a copy of it and produced the same before the authority. Once it was found to be doubtful, the authorities were right in not correcting his birth date in the service book. Admittedly, the School Leaving Certificate was produced by the respondent and the entry in the service book was made on the basis of the birth date mentioned therein. As he failed to show that the said entry was made due to want of care on the part of some other person or that it was an obvious clerical error, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the appellant to correct the same.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. OA stands dismissed. But, in the circumstances, without costs.
Appeal allowed.
********