CWP/3246/2019 on 31 December 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 3246 of 2019

Decided on: 31.12.2019 Hind Naresh …Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education …Respondents and others

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with M/s. J.K. Verma, Adarsh K. Sharma, Ritta Goswami and Nand Lal Thakur,

Additional

Advocates General, for respondents No. 2 and 3. L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. (Oral) The petitioner, who is working with respondents No. 2 & 3­department since 28th December, 2006, has 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to correct his date of birth as '10.07.1965', which has been recorded as '01.02.1965' in his Matriculation Certificate as well as service record.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not within the knowledge of the fact that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded in his school and service record as '01.02.1965', but, recently, in the year 2019, when he visited the office of his Gram Panchayat, he came to know that his date of birth has been recorded as '10.07.1965' in the panchayat records. It is his further contention that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is '10.07.1965', as is also reflected in the admission form/application (Annexure P­1), but the same has been altered as '01.02.1965' subsequently. It has, therefore, been prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the school records as well as the service record.

3. Contrarily, Mr. Adarsh K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that as per Note 6 under FRSR 56, an alteration of date of birth of a Government servant can be made only if a request in this regard is made within five years of his entry into Government service, but in this case, the petitioner has not submitted any application for correction of entries in his service record till date. Hence, the question of issuing directions to the respondents to change the date of birth of the petitioner in his service record, at this stage, does not arise. He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

5. At the outset, we may add herein that when the petitioner came to know about the wrong entry of his date of birth in the records, it was obligatory on his part to first approach the appropriate Authority for correction of the alleged wrong entries, though, within a reasonable time from his entry in service. But, the petitioner, without representing his case before the appropriate Authority, has directly invoked

the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Even otherwise, this Court would have issued some directions to the respondents in case the petitioner would have approached the respondents, as is provided under FRSR No. 56, within a period of five years from the date of his appointment. At the time of appointment, the petitioner had produced his Matriculation Certificate, wherein his date of birth has been recorded as '01.02.1965'. He has not made any application to the respondents to change the entries with respect to his date of birth recorded in his service record till date, what to say of five years from the date of his entry into service. Therefore, the date of birth, as recorded in his Matriculation Certificate as well as the service record, is to be taken into consideration for all intents and purposes.

7. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered by the apex Court in State of Punjab versus Mohinder Singh, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1868; and by this Court in Ms.

Shagun Dogra versus C.B.S.E. and others, Latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 77, but, both these judgments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

8. Under these circumstances, there is no substance in the writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. However, if the petitioner wants alteration in his date of birth for a purpose other than for his service record, it is for him to approach the Civil Court.

9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly. (L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge December 31, 2019 ( rajni )