PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARHversusMEGH RAJ GARG AND ANOTHER

                        [2010] 7 S.C.R. 172


A    PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
                                  v.
                MEGH RAJ GARG AND ANOTHER
                 (Civil Appeal No. 1591 of 2006)

                            MAY 20, 2010
B
             [G.S. SINGHVI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.]

        Service Law:

c       Punjab Civil Service Rules:

        Vol. I, Chapter II, Annexure-A, Para I (as it stood prior to
  the 1994 amendment) - Correction of date of birth - HELD:
   In view of the statutory provision, there being a complete bar
   to the making of an application by a government servant after
D two years from the date of his entry into service, the High Court
  or the State Government did not have the power, jurisdiction
  or authority to entertain the representation made by the
  judicial officer concerned after more than twelve years of his
  entering into the service - Therefore, neither of them
E committed any illegality by refusing to accept the prayer
  made by the judicial officer on the basis of the change effected
  by the University in the date of birth recorded in the
  matriculation certificate.

F      The date of birth of respondent no. 1, who joined
  service as Sub-Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, in March
  1973, was recorded in the service book as 27.3.1936, in
  accordance with the matriculation certificate. After ten
  y1~ars of joining the service, he made an application for
G correcting his date of birth in the matriculation certificate
  as 27.3.1938. The Syndicate of the University allowed the
  prayer. Accordingly, necessary changes were made in the
  certificate. Thereafter, respondent no.1 represented to the
  State Government for change of his date of birth in the
H                                 172
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH v. 173
              MEGH RAJ GARG
service record. The State Government in consultation           A
with the High Court rejected the prayer. Respondent no.
1 then filed a suit for declaration that the decision of the
State Government and the High Court was illegal, void
and ineffective, and for a mandatory injunction directing
the defendants to change his date of birth in the service      B
book from 27.3.1936 to 27.3.1938. The suit was decreed.
The lower appellate court and the High Court affirmed the
decree. Aggrieved, the High Court filed the appeal.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                               c
      HELD: 1.1. This Court has time and again cautioned
civil courts and the High Courts against entertaining and
accepting the claims made by the employees long after
entering into service for correction of the recorded date
of birth. [para 12] (182-H; 183-A]                             D

     Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993) 2 SCC 162;
Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others
v. R. Kirubakaran 1994 Supp.(1) SCC 155 and Union of India
vs. C. Rama Swamy (1997) 3 SCR 760, relied on.
                                                               E
     1.2. In view of Para 1 of Annexure-A to Chapter II of
the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume 1 (as it stood at
the time respondent No.1 joined service and also on the
date of his making an application for correction of the
date of birth recorded in his service book), which has         F
direct bearing on the issue relating to maintainability of
the suit, there is a complete bar to the making of an
application by the government servant for correction of
his recorded age after two years from the date of his
entry into government service. In the instant case,            G
respondent No.1, ten years after entering into the service,
submitted the application to the University for effecting
change in the date of birth recorded in the matriculation
certificate. It is thus evident that respondent No.1 applied
for change of the date of birth recorded in his service        H
    174    SUPREME .COURT REPORTS               [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A book much beyond the time limit of two years specified
  In the rule. Therefore, the High Court or for that reason
  the State Government did not have the power, jurisdiction
  or authority to entertain the representation made by
  respondent No.1. Neither of them committed any illegality
B by refu~ing to accept the prayer made by respondent
  No.1 or· the basis of change effected by the 'Jniversity
  in the date of birth recorded in his matriculation
  certificate. [para 9-11] [179-G-H; 180-D-H; 181-G]

       1.3. The decision taken by the Syndicate of the
C University to accept the request of responuent no. 1 did
  not give him any cause for filing application or making
  representation for change of the date of birth recorded
  in the service book. It is, therefore, held that the suit filed
  by respondent No.1 for correction of the date of birth
D recorded in his service book after twelve years of his
  joining the service was clearly misconceived and the trial
  court committed a serious error by passing a decree in.
  favour of respondent No.1 and the lower appellate court
  and the High Court repeated the same error by refusing
E to set aside the decree passed by the trial court. [Para 11
  and 15] [181-H; 182-A; 187-E-F]
                        Case Law Reference:
      (1993) 2 sec 162           relied on            para 12
F
      (1994 )Supp.1 SCC 155 relied on                 para 13
      (1997) 3 SCR 760           relied on            para 14

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
G 1591 of 2006.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 06.09.2002 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 901 of
    1H96.

H
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH v. 175
              MEGH RAJ GARG

    Rajeev Sharma, Abhishek Birthray for the Appellant.             A

      Ajit Kumar, Shikha Roy (for S.K. Sabharwal), Ajay Pal (NP)
for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                    B
    G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Whether the decision taken by the
Syndicate of the Panjab University to entertain and accept the
application made by respondent No.1 Megh Raj Garg f(_)r
changing the date of birth recorded in his matriculation
certificate was binding on the State Government and the High        C
Court of Punjab and Haryana (hereinafter described as 'the
appellant') and whether the suit filed by respondent No.1 for
ordaining correction of the date of birth recorded in his service
book was maintainable are the questions which arise for
determination in this appeal filed by the appellant against the     o
judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in
Regular Second Appeal No.901 of 1996.

     2. Respondent No.1 joined service as Sub Judge-cum-'
Judicial Magistrate, II Class in March, 1973. His date of birth
was recorded in the service book as 27 .3.1936 because that E
was the date mentioned in the matriculation certificate and the
application mad;:: by him in response to the advertisement
issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission. After ten
years of joining the service, respondent No.1 submitted an
application to the concerned authority of Punjab University for F
amendment of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation
certificate by asserting that his correct date of birth was
27.3.1938 but by mistake the same was recorded as
27.3.1936. In support of this assertion, respondent No.1 relied
upon the certificates issued by Government High School, G
Moonak and Hindu Sabha High School, Sunam. The Date of
Birth Committee of the University recommended that the
 request made by respondent No.1 may be accepted.
 Thereupon, the Syndicate of the University directed that the
                                                                H
    176      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 7 S.C.R.


A date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate of
  respondent No.1 be changed from 27.3.1936 to 27.3.1938. In
  compliance of the decision taken by the Syndicate, necessary
  changes were made in the matriculation certificate of
  respondent No.1.
B
       3. After having succeeded in persuading the University to
  change the date of birth recorded in his matriculation certificate,
  respondent No.1 represented to the State Government for
  making corresponding change in the date of birth recorded in
C the service book. The State Government, in consultation with
  the High Court, rejected the prayer of respondent No.1 and he
  was informed about this vide letter dated 28.1.1993.

       4. Respondent No.1 challenged the decision of the State
  Government in Civil Suit No.417-A of 1993 and prayed for grant
D of a declaration that the decision of the State Government and
  the High Court not to correct the date of birth recorded in his
  service book is illegal, void and ineffective. He also prayed for
  issue of a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to
  change the date of birth recorded in the service book from
E 27.3.1936 to 27.3.1938.

         5. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.2
    (appellant herein), reliance was placed on Para 1 of Annexure-
    A to Chapter II of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume 1 and
    it was pleaded that the application made by respondent No.1
F   for correction of date of birth recorded in his service book after
    twelve years of entering into service was rightly rejected. It was
    further pleaded that correction of the date of birth recorded in
    the matriculation certificate by the University was not binding
    on the High Court and the State Government.
G
         6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed
    the following issues:

          "(1) Whether the order dated 28.1.1993 is illegal, null and
          void as alleged? OPP.
H
  PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH v. 177
          MEGH RAJ GARG [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

      (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory    A
      injunction as prayed for? OPP.

      (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable as it is not within
      limitation? OPD.

      (4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD               B

      (5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from challenging the
      date of birth as mentioned in the office record? OPD.

      (6) Relief."                                                        c
       7. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the
  parties, the trial Court decreed the suit and declared that
  rejection of the representation made by respondent No.1 for
  correction of his date of birth was illegal and void. The trial Court
  also issued a mandatory direction for alteration of the date of         D
· birth recorded in the service book of respondent No.1 from
  27.3.1936 to 27.3.1938. While dealing with the issue of
  limitation, the learned tria~ Judge distinguished the judgment$
  of this Court in Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993(2 SCC
  162 and Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department                     E
  and others v. R. Kirubakaran 1994 Supp.(1) SCC .155, by
  making the following observations:

      "In my opinion, these authorities which are based on Rules
      I Administrative instructions prescribing period of limitation      F
      within which the employee can submit his application for
      correction of date of birth to his employer, have become
      redundant so far as the present suit is concerned because
      Punjab University
                      I
                           has issued notification No. 11/4/93-5
      PP-11/4499, dated 21.6.1994, making Rules to amend the              G
      Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I, inter alia to
      the effect that employees of the Punjab.Government can
      apply for the change of date of birth to the Government
      within a period of two years from the coming into force of
      the aforesaid Rules. Thus, the aforesaid ivf.o rulings of the       H
    178      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [:?01 OJ 7 S.C.R.

A         Hon'ble Supreme Court do not debar the plaintiff from
          seeking his remedy in the Civil Court and at least do not
          make the suit barred by limitation."

        8. The lower appellate Court agreed with the trial Court on
B all the issues and dismissed the appeal preferred by the
  appellant. The second appeal jointly filed by the appellant and
  the State of Punjab was dismissed by the learned Single Judge,
  who held that the decree passed by the trial Court, which was
  confirmed by the lower appellate Court was legally correct and
C justified. The issue of limitation was decided by the learned
  Single Judge in the following words:

          "The second contention raised by learned counsel for the
          appellants that the Punjab Civil Service Rules, which are
          applicable to the plaintiff-respondent, bar the present suit,
D
          as the same was not filed within two years after entry into
          service, is also not acceptable. Vide notification dated
          21.6.1994, an amendment was made in the Punjab Civil
          Service Rules vide Punjab Civil Service (First Amendment)
          Rules, Volume-I Part- I, 1994, according to which the
E         employee already in service of the Government of Punjab
          on the date of coming into force of the amended rules may
          apply for the change of date of birth within a period of two
          years from coming into force of these Rules on the basis
          of documentary evidence, such as Matriculation certificate
F         or Municipal Birth Certificate etc. By this amendment, one
          chance was given to those employees who did not avail
          the opportunity to get their date of birth corrected within
          the stipulated period of two years from entry into the
          Government service and a fresh period of two years was
G         provided to them which was to start from the date of
          amendment. The contention of counsel for the appellants,
          that this amendment was subsequently withdrawn by the
          State Government vide letter dated 13.12.1995 of the
          Deputy Secretary (Personnel) of the Department of
H
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDl~ARH v. 179
        MEGH RAJ GARG [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

    Personnel and Administrative Reforms of Government of                A
    Punjab, was rightly not accepted by the Courts below in
    view of Division Bench decision of this Court in Civil Writ
    Petition No.1476of1996, titled as Daljit Singh v. State of
    Punjab ard others, wherein it was held that simply on the
    basis of tl1e letter dated 13.12.1995, issued by the Deputy          B
    Secretary, the operation of the rules cannot come to a
    stand still. Thus, in view of the said amendment, the suit
    filed by the plaintiff-respondent cannot be said to be barred
    by limitation and the contention of the appellants that the
    date of birth of an employee can only be corrected within            c
    two years of entry into service cannot be accepted. The
    first appellate court has also examined this aspect of the
    matter and discussed the same in detail in paras 37 to 42
    of its judgment. I find no infirmity or illegality in the findings
    recorded by the Courts below in this regard. Even                    D
    otherwise, it has been held by a Division Bench of this
    Court in Jiwan Dass v. State of Haryana and another,
     1989(2) I.LR. Punjab 110, that if a Government employee
    did not get his date of birth altered under the service rules
    within a stipulated period, then his remedy to get the same          E
    altered under the civil law will not be barred because the
    administrative law do not bar jurisdiction of Civil Court and
    the decision of the administrative authorities allowing or
     rejecting the requests for alteration in date of birth is open
    to judicial scrutiny when challenged before a court of
    competent jurisdiction."                                             F

     9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully scrutinized the records. Para 1 of Annexure-A to
Chapter II of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume 1 (as it
stood at the time respondent No.1 joined service and also on             G
the date of his making an application for correction of the date
of birth recorded in his service book), which has direct bearing
on the issue relating to maintainability of the suit filed by
respondent No.1 reads as under:
                                                                         H
    180      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A         "In regard to the date of birth declaration of age made at
          the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government
          service shall, as against the Government employee in
          question, be deemed to be conclusive unless, he applies
          for correction of his age recorded within two years from
B         the date of his entry into Government service. The
          Administrative Department in consultation with the
          Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms,
          however, reserves the right to make a correction in the
          recorded age of a Government employee at any time
c         against the interests of the Government employee when it
          is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book or in
          the history of service of a Gazetted Government employee
          is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded with the
          object that the Government employee may derive some
          unfair advantage therefrom."
D
       10. An analysis of the above reproduced rule makes it clear
  that the declaration of age made at the time of or for the
  purpose of entry into government service is conclusive and
  binding on the government servant. The only exception to this
E is that the government servant can make an application for
  correction of age within two years from the date of entry into
  service. This necessarily implies that an application made by
  a government servant for correction of age after two years of
  his entry into service cannot be entertained by the competent
F authority. However, the competent authority can, at any time,
  correct the age recorded in the service book or in the history
  service of a gazetted government employee if it is satisfied that
  the age has been so recorded with a view to give undue benefit
  to the employee I officer like continuance in service beyond the
G age of superannuation. Of course, while undertakirig this
  exercise, the competent authority is bound to comply with the
  rule of audi alteram partem and give a reasonable opportunity
  to the concerned employee/officer to represent his cause
  against the proposed change in the recorded age/date of birth.
H
 PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH v. 181
         MEGH RAJ GARG [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

In other words, while there is a complete bar to the making of       A
an application by the government servant for correction of his
recorded age after two years from the date of his entry into
government service, the competent authority can make
correction at any time if it is found that the age recorded in the
service book is incorrect and has been so recorded with a view       B
to enable the concerned employee to continue in service
beyond the age of superannuation or gain any other advantage.

      11. Undisputedly, the date of birth of respondent No.1, who
joined service in March 1973 was recorded in his service book        c
as 27 .3.1936. This was done keeping in view the declaration
made by him in the application form submitted for the purpose
of recruitment to the service and his matriculation certificate.
 Being a law graduate, respondent No.1 must have been aware
of the date of birth i.e., 27.3.1936 recorded in his matriculation D
certificate and this must be the reason why he mentioned that
date in the application form submitted to the Public Service
Commission. If the correct date of birth of respondent No.1 was
27 .3.1938 and this was supported by the certificates issued by
the schools in which he had studied before appearing in the
 matriculation examination, then he would have immediately after E
joining the service made an application to the University for
 change of date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate
 and persuaded the concerned authority to decide the same so
 as to enable him to move the State Government and the High
 Court for making corresponding change in the date of birth . F
 recorded in his service book in terms of Para 1 of Annexure-A
 to Chapter II of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I.
 However, respondent No.1 waited for more than ten years after
 entering into service and submitted an application dated
 27.10.1983 to the University for effecting change in the date of G
 birth recorded in the matriculation certificate by citing the school
 certificates as the basis for his claim. The Syndicate of the
 University took about one year and three months to decide the
 matter in favour of respondent No.1 and the date of birth
                                                                      H
    - 182     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A     recorded in the matriculation certificate was changed from
     27.3.1936 to 27.3.1938 sometime in January/February 1985.
     Thereafter, respondent No.1 submitted representation dated
     22.2.1985 to the Registrar of the High Court seeking correction
     in the date of birth recorded in the service book. His plea was
B    finally rejected in January 1993. It is thus evident that
     respondent No.1 applied for change of the date of birth
     recorded in his service book much beyc..nd the time limit of two
     years specified in the rule. The High Court or for that reason
     the State Government did not have the power, jurisdiction or
c    authority to entertain the representation made by respondent
     No.1 after more than twelve years of his entering into service.
     Therefore, neither of them committed any illegality by refusing
     to accept the prayer made by respondent No.1 on the basis of
     change effected by the University in the date of birth recorded
     in his matriculation certificate. Unfortunately, the trial Court, the
0
     lower appellate Court and the learned Single Judge of the High
     Court totally misdirected themselves in appreciating the true
     scope of the embargo contained in the relevant rule against the
     entertaining of an application for correction of date of birth after
     two years of the government servant's entry into service and
E    all of them committed grave error by nullifying the decision taken
     by the State Government in consultation with the High Court not
     to accept the representation made by respondent No.1 for
     change of date of birth recorded in his service book. All the
     courts overlooked the stark reality that respondent No.1 had
F    made application for change of date of birth recorded in the
     matriculation certificate after more than ten years of his entry
     into government service and the decision taken by the
     Syndicate to accept his request did not give him any cause for
     filing application or making representation for change of the
G    date of birth recorded in the service book.

          12. This Court has time and again cautioned civil courts
     and the High Courts against entertaining and accepting the
     claim made by the employees long after entering into service
H
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH v. 183
        MEGH RAJ GARG [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
for correction of the recorded date of birth. In Union of India v.    A
Harnam Singh (supra), this Court considered the question
whether the employer was justified in declining the
respondent's request for correction of date of birth made after
thirty five years of his induction into the service and whether the
Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in allowing the         B
original. application filed by him. While reversing the order of
the Tribunal, this Court observed:

     "A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires
     the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as c
     fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating
     conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed
     with on other grounds contained in the relevant service
     rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. The
     date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant
                                                                       0
     is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that the right
     to continue in. service stands decided by its entry in the
     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 E
      his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof
      relating to his date of birth as different from the one earli,er
      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 F
      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 !aches or stale claims, is generally
      applied by the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless
      competent for the Government to fix a time-limit, in the G
      service rules, after which no application for correction of
      date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained.
      A Government servant who makes an application for
       correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed,
                                                                       H
    184       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 7 S.C.R.


A         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
B         tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over
          their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire.
          Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would
          determine his date of superanr1uation even if it amounts
          to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis
c         of his actual age. Indeed, as held by this Court in State of
          Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka a public servant may
          dispute the date of birth as entered in the service record
          and apply for its correction but till the record is corrected
          he cannot claim to continue in service on the basis of the
          date of birth claimed by him. This Court said: (SCC pp.
D
          625-26, para 4)

          "... The date of compulsory retirement under F.R. 56(a) must
          in our judgment, be determined on the basis of the service
          record, and not on what the respondent claimed to be his
E         date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected
          consistently with the appropriate procedure. A public
          servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the
          service record and may apply for correction of the record.
          But until the record is corrected, he cannot claim that he
F         has been deprived of the guarantee under Article 311 (2)
          of the Constitution by being compulsorily retired on
          attaining the age of superannuation on the footing of the
          date of birth entered in the service record."

G                                               (emphasis supplied)

        13. In Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department
    and others v. R. Kirubakaran (supra), this Court considered
  the question whether the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had
H the jurisdiction to entertain an application made by the
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH v. 185
        MEGH RAJ GARG [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

respondent for correction of his date of birth just before           A
superannuation. While answering the question in negative, the
Court observed:

    "An application for correction of the date of birth should not
    be dealt with by the tribunal or the High Court keeping in       8
    view only the public servant concerned. It need not be
    pointed out that any such direction for correction of the
    date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain
    reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him
    for their respective promotions are affected in this process.    c
    Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as,
    because of the ccrrrection of the date of birth, the officer
    concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years,
    within which time many officers who are below him in
    seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their
                                                                     0
    promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a
    person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of
    retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this
    is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the
    court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a
     public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth.   E
    As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials
    which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out
     by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue
     a direction, on the basis of materials which make such
     claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued,      F
     the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there
     has been real injustice to the person concerned and his
     claim for correction of date of birth has been made in
     accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the
     time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been   G
     framed or made, prescribing the period within which such
     application has to be filed, then such application must
     be filed within the time, which can be held to be
     reasonable.· The applicant has to produce the evidence
                                                                     H
    186       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010) 7 S.C.R.


A         in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable
          proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such
          question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the
          wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book.
          In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of
B         such public servants to approach the court or the tribunal
          on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness
          of the entries in respect of their dates of birth in the
          service books. By this process, it has come to the notice
          of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their
c         applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders,
          they continue for months, after the date of superannuation.
          The court or the tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting
          an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima
          facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced
          because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be
D
          compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed
          undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused
          injustice to his immediate junior."

                                                 (emphasis supplied)
E
        14. In Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy (supra), this
  Court, after an in depth analysis of Rule 16-A of All India
  Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958,
  reversed the order passed by Hyderabad Bench of the Central
F Administrative Tribunal which had directed alteration of the date
  of birth of the respondent and observed:

          "In matters relating to appointment to service various
          factors are taken into consideration before making a
G         selection or an appointment. One of the relevant
          circumstances is the age of the person who is sought to
          be appointed. It may not be possible to conclusively prove
          that an advantage had been gained by representing a date
          of birth which is different than that which is later sought to
H
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH v. 187
        MEGH RAJ GARG [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

    be incorporated. But it will not be unreasonable to presume A
    that when a candidate, at the first instance, communicates
    a particular date of birth there is obviously his intention that
    his age calculated on the.basis of that date of birth should
    be taken into consideration by the appointing authority for
    adjudging his suitability for a responsible office. In fact, B
    where maturity is a relevant factor to assess suitability, an
    older persor 1 1s ordinarily considered to be more mature
    and, therefore, more suitable. In such a case, it cannot be
    said that advantage is not obtained by a person because
    of an earlier date of birth, if he subsequently claims to be       c
    younger in age, after taking that advantage. In such a
     situation, it would be against public policy to permit such
     a change to enable longer benefit to the person concerned.
     This being so, we find it difficult to accept the broad
     proposition that the principle of estoppehvouldnot apply
                                                                     0
     in such a case where the age of a person wf\o is sought
     to be appointed may be a relev;in1consideration to
     assess his suitability."

      15. By applying the ratio of the above noted judgments,
we hold that the suit filed by respondent No.1 for correction of       E
the date of birth recorded in his service book after twelve years
of his joining the service was clearly misconceived and the trial
Court committed a serious error by passing a decree in favour
of respondent No.1 and the lower appellate Court and the High
Court repeated the same error by refusing to set aside the             F
decree passed by the trial Court. The learned lower appellate
Court and the High Court also committed an error by relying
upon the amendment made in the rule by notification dated
21.6.1994 which enabled the government servant to seek
correction of date of birth within next two years. It is neither the   G
pleaded case of respondent No.1 nor it was argued by the
learned counsel appearing on his behalf that the amendment
made in 1994 was retrospective or that his client had applied
for correction of date of birth after 21.6.1994. Rather, in
response to the Court's query, the learned counsel candidly            H
    188     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 7 S.C.R.


A stated that his client had applied for correction of the date of
  birth recorded in the service book for the first and last time in
   1985 after the University entertained and accepted his
  application for correction of his date of birth recorded in the
  matriculation certificate.
B
        16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
  judgment is set aside. The judgments and decrees passed by
  the trial Court and lower appellate Court are also set aside and
  the suit filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed. Ordinarily, we
c would have saddled respondent No.1 with costs but keeping
  in view the fact that he has already retired from service, we have
  refrained from doing so.

   R.P.                                           Appeal allowed.