THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BOMBAY AND ANR.versusBHAGWAN V. LAHANE

     THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BOMBAY AND ANR.                                   A
                          v.
                 BHAGWAN V. LAHANE

                           NOVEMBER 26, 1996

             [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVAT!, JJ.]                                 B
                                                                    I

      Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981
: Rule 36.

       Service Law-Date of birth-Correction of-lnstmctions regard-                 C
ing-Respondent appointed as Sub-l11spector-Secondary school Leaving
Certificate filed at the time of entry i11to service-Date of birth recorded 011
the basis thereof-Representation for correction of date of bilt!t-Rejec-
tion-Application before Tribunal-Tribunal accepted the case of respo11de11t
and directed correction of date of birth-Appeal-Held, the respondellt ought
to have produced the reliable material to show that the birth date me11tio(1ed     D
in the School Leaving Certificate was incorrect-No such material was        '
produced by him-As the employee failed to show that the ent1y 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
~-•                                                                                E
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15432 of
1996.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.92 of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in O.A. No. 1511 of 1991.                          F
        G.B. Sethi and D.M. Nargolkar for the Appellants.

        A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondent.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :                           G

        Delay condoned.

        Leave granted.

        We have heard learned counsel on both sides.                               H
                                   199
    200                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A        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 completion thereof, he was appointed and
   gained entry. into the service on July 1, 1976. As per Rule 36 of the
B 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
 1
 · 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
C clerical error. Instructions have been issued in that behalf which reads as
   under:

            "Instruction-(1) Normally, no application for alteration of the entry
            regarding date of birth as recorded in the service book or service
D           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
E           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
            relatives;

F            (b )School leaving certificate, secondary school certificate examina-
            tion/Matriculation certificate or University certificate;

             (c) Extract from a birth or baptismal register;

             (d) Horoscope;
G
             (e) Entry in family records or accounts books."

          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
H   and it was wrongly entered in the service register as November 12, 1948. It
                    COMMR. OF POLICE v. B.V. LAHANE                       201
 appears that the representation was rejected in 1983. He filed· the OA in A
 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'.


         It is not in dispute that the respondent haq produced Secondary          B
  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       C
  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 mentione_d'.in the School Leaving·
   Certificate was incorrect. No such material was produced by him. The           D
  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   E
  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 village~s and illiterate had named the
  appellant either before or on the day of his birth. The explanation given       p
  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      G
  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 (he service
  book. Admittedly, the School Leaving Certificate was produced by the            H
    202                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A 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.

B         The appeal is accordingly allowed. OA stands dismissed. But, in the
    circumstances, without costs.

    T.N.A                                                    Appeal allowed.