# State Of U.P. & Ors v. Tej Ram Kashyap

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 749
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-02-29
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-tej-ram-kashyap-43597
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

3 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs Tej Ram Kashyap
749

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.2.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. - 160 of 2016

State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Tej Ram Kashyap ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellants
Vivek Shandilya

Counsel for Respondent
Abhay Raj Singh

This special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 2
December 2015. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and
has directed the correction of his date of birth in the service record of the Irrigation Department of the
State Government as 15 February 1959 in place of 15 February 1956.

The respondent was appointed as a helper in the Irrigation Department on 1 November 1978. The
application submitted by the respondent for appointment indicates that he was 22 years of age and
had failed at the High School examination. The age of the respondent was entered in his service book
as 15 February 1956. The date of entry in the service book is 17 February 1984 and bears the thumb
impression of the respondent together with his signature. On 22 June 2004, the respondent submitted
an application to the effect that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded as 15 February 1956
instead and in place of 15 February 1959. In support thereof, the respondent relied upon a certificate
issued by the Principal of the Rajkiya Inter College, Bareilly dated 29 March 1990 indicating that the
date of birth of the respondent in the records of the institution is 15 February 1959.

Court held that after considering both on facts as we have indicated and having due regard to the
provisions of law noted above, the learned Single Judge was manifestly in error in entertaining the
writ petition and in directing the grant of relief for correction in the date of birth of the respondent
from 15 February 1956 to 15 February 1959. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained in
the first phase having been filed in 2015, for seeking correction in the date of birth. When the writ
petition was filed, the respondent was virtually on the eve of his retirement. A long time after the
respondent had entered into service, a correction in the date of birth in the service record ought not
to have been entertained.

We, accordingly, allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned order and judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 2 December 2015.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr D Y Chandrachud, C.J.)
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. This special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge
dated 2 December 2015. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the
respondent and has directed the correction of his date of birth in the service record of the
Irrigation Department of the State Government as 15 February 1959 in place of 15 February
1956.

2. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition at the stage of preliminary
hearing, without calling for a counter affidavit from the State on the basis that in view of the
"undisputed facts and the documents on record" the petition would be decided without the
defence of the State being placed on the record.

3. The respondent was appointed as a helper in the Irrigation Department on 1
November 1978. The application submitted by the respondent for appointment indicates that
he was 22 years of age and had failed at the High School examination. The age of the
respondent was entered in his service book as 15 February 1956. The date of entry in the
service book is 17 February 1984 and bears the thumb impression of the respondent together
with his signature. On 22 June 2004, the respondent submitted an application to the effect
that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded as 15 February 1956 instead and in place of
15 February 1959. In support thereof, the respondent relied upon a certificate issued by the
Principal of the Rajkiya Inter College, Bareilly dated 29 March 1990 indicating that the date
of birth of the respondent in the records of the institution is 15 February 1959. The
certificate indicates that the respondent had appeared at the High School examination in
1978 which he cleared but the institution has still not received the High School certificate
from the Secondary Education Board.

4. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has relied upon the
circumstance that the identity card of the respondent issued by the Irrigation Department
mentions his date of birth as 15 February 1959 and that the High School certificate which
was produced by the respondent before the Court indicated the date of birth as relied upon
by the respondent.

5. The learned standing counsel has urged that at the time of preparation of the service
book, the respondent had duly signed the entry which indicated that his date of birth was
recorded as 15 February 1956. The learned Single Judge rejected the submission by holding
that the respondent is still in service and has been agitating his claim for correction of his
date of birth since 2004. For these reasons, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition and directed the correction of the date of birth from 15 February 1956 to 15
February 1959.

6. At the outset it would be material to refer to the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment
to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974.

Rule 2 provides as follows:
3 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs Tej Ram Kashyap
751

"[2. Determination of correct date of birth or age. -The date of birth of a Government
servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination
at the time of his entry into the Government service or where a Government servant has not passed
any such examination as aforesaid or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date
of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the Government service
shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to
his service, including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement
benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in
any circumstances whatsoever.]"

Rule 2 indicates that the date of birth which has been recorded in the High School
certificate or in respect of an equivalent examination, shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth
for all purposes in relation to his service. Where a government servant has not passed the High
School or equivalent examination as aforesaid, the date of birth or age recorded in the service book at
the time of his entry into government service, shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth. Rule 2
further provides that where a Government servant has passed the High School examination after
joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into
the Government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for
all purposes in relation to his service.

7. In the present case, the application submitted by the respondent when he entered upon service
indicates that he had disclosed his age to be as 22 years and that he had failed in the High School
examination 'High School Anuttirna'. The respondent joined services on 1 November 1978. The case
of the respondent himself is that he had initially failed in the High School examination and that he
appeared in the supplementary examination which he cleared. Now, when the respondent submitted
an application on 22 June 2004, the first thing that needs to be noticed is that it was addressed to the
competent authority in the Irrigation Department nearly twenty six years after he had joined the
service.

8. In the meantime, as we have noted, the service book of the respondent reflected his date of
birth as 15 February 1956 and it bears both the signature and thumb imprint of the respondent. Hence,
the respondent was aware of the fact that his date of birth has been entered as 15 February 1956. This
also tallies with his disclosure in his application seeking employment which indicates that his age was
22 years in 1978. This application, it may be noted, was in terms of the form prescribed under the
standing orders applicable under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. Even when the
respondent submitted his application for correction of the date of birth on 22 June 2004, he relied
upon a certificate of the Principal of the Inter College dated 29 March 1990 which, while stating that
the respondent had passed the High School examination in 1978 and that his date of birth in the
records of the institution was 15 February 1959, stated that the institution had not received a copy of
the High School certificate from the Secondary Education Department.

9. The case can be considered from either of two stand points. Firstly, as a general principle, it is
well settled that an application for correction of the date of birth in the service record, made belatedly
and a long time after the employee had entered into service, should not be entertained. This principle
must apply to the facts of the present case, where as we have noted, the respondent himself declared
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his age as 22 years when he sought employment in 1978 and his service book was completed in
1984, duly endorsed by the respondent indicating that his date of birth was 15 February 1956. Twenty
six years thereafter, the respondent sought correction of his date of birth. His submission that he had
submitted his High School certificate when he joined service is clearly belied by his own statement
made in his application for employment that he failed in the High School examination at that stage.
Equally significant in the present case, is the principle which is contained in Rule 2 of the statutory
rules which have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution.
Rule 2 provides that in the first instance a date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the
certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into
the Government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth for all purposes in relation to
service. Where a Government servant has not passed the High School examination or an equivalent
examination, the date of birth or age recorded in the service book at the time of entry in the service is
to be taken for all purposes as the correct date of birth. Rule 2 also provides that in a situation where
an employee has passed the High School examination after joining the service, the date of birth
entered at the time of his entry in service or age recorded in the service book at the time of his entry
into Government service shall be treated as the correct date of birth.

10. In this background, both on facts as we have indicated and having due regard to the
provisions of law noted above, the learned Single Judge was manifestly in error in entertaining the
writ petition and in directing the grant of relief for correction in the date of birth of the respondent
from 15 February 1956 to 15 February 1959. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained in
the first phase having been filed in 2015, for seeking correction in the date of birth. When the writ
petition was filed, the respondent was virtually on the eve of his retirement. A long time after the
respondent had entered into service, a correction in the date of birth in the service record ought not to
have been entertained.

11. We, accordingly, allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned order and judgment of
the learned Single Judge dated 2 December 2015. In consequence, the writ petition filed by the
respondent shall stand dismissed.

12. There shall be no order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 2.3.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Special Appeal No - 154 of 2016

Kamlesh Chandra Tiwari ...Appellant
Versus
State of U P & Ors. ...Respondents