Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Unknown vs Union Of India Through Member (P&V) on 28 August, 2012
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. Jaipur, the 28th day of August, 2012 TRANSFER APPLICATION No. 41/2009 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 553/2004 CORAM : HONBLE MR.ANIL KUMAR, ADMINISITRATIVE MEMBER Ramesh Chander son of Shri Ishwar Singh, IRS, aged 40 years, resident of 350, Shahtri Nadar, Dadabari, Kota (Rajasthan). Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. Abhay Jain) Versus 1. Union of India through Member (P&V), Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Gaurav Jain ORDER (ORAL)
The applicant has filed this OA thereby praying for the following reliefs:-
(a) The Honble Tribunal be pleased to admit this application.
(b) The Honble Tribunal be pleased to direct respondents to make necessary corrections in the date of birth recorded in the service records as claimed by the applicant.
(c) To award suitable costs of his litigation.
(d) To grant any other and further relief that the Honble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate.
2. This OA No. 553/2004 was decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 25.01.2005, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. This decision of the Tribunal was challenged before the Honble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur vide DB Civil Writ Petition No. 7028/2005. The Honble High Court vide its order dated 15.07.2009 set aside the order passed by this Tribunal dated 25.01.2005 and directed the Tribunal to decide the OA filed by the applicant on merit after giving appropriate opportunity to both the sides.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant vide his representation dated 17.08.1995 approached before the respondents to make correction in the service record in regard to the date of birth from 05.04.1993 to 09.05.1964 for the reason that while getting the applicant admitted in the Primary School his father had committed inadvertent mistake by reporting the incorrect date of birth. Alongwith the representation, necessary affidavits were also enclosed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant vide letter dated 29.01.1998. Aggrieved by this decision of the respondents, the applicant filed an OA No. 39/1997 before the Ahmedabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Honble Ahmedabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the letter dated 29.01.1998 and directed to consider the request of the applicant on merits within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and come to an appropriate finding. The respondents being aggrieved by this order of this Tribunal filed a Petition before the Honble Gujarat High court. The Honble Gujarat High Court vide its order dated 12.06.2000 disposed of the petition as having become infructuous.
6. When necessary corrections were not made in the service record, the applicant filed another OA No. 373/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench vide its order dated 04.07.2002 (Annexure A/8) quashed the order dated 15.11.2000 and directed the respondents to consider the case on merit and pass a detailed & speaking order under intimation to the applicant.
7. Subsequently, when the respondents failed to act within the prescribed period, the applicant was compelled to approach the CAT Ahmedabad Bench by filing OA No. 63/2003. In the meantime, the applicant was got transferred from Gujarat to Rajasthan and hence he requested the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi to transfer this OA to Jaipur Bench. While the matter of transfer of OA to Jaipur was pending for consideration, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench vide its order dated 27.11.2003 dismissed the OA, holding it to be premature in view of the respondents order dated 14.02.2003. Vide this order dated 14.02.003, the respondents have passed a speaking order rejecting the applicants claim. The applicant filed a Review Application No. 80/2004, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.10.2004 (Annexure A/15). While dismissing the Review Application, the Tribunal in Para No. 4 observed as under:-
The grounds have been considered. The OA was pending before this Tribunal. The Tribunal was not barred from deciding the said OA. The applicant had not challenged the speaking order dated 14th February, 2003 hence the relief claimed could not have been granted by the Tribunal. The OA has been rightly rejected. It is, however, open to the applicant, in case he is aggrieved by the order dated 14th February, 2003 to challenge the said order by filing a separate OA.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the directions of the Tribunal, the present OA has been filed. While rejecting the applicants claim, the respondents have given the following reasons:-
(i) The date of birth Certificate issued by the Rajgarh Municipality cannot be accepted in view of the fact that Municipality had not conducted any independent verification. Hence, this certificate is not adequate and independent evidence.
(ii) Affidavits furnished by maternal uncle and maternal grand mother are of close relatives and do not constitute independent corroborative evidence.
(iii) The affidavits of his father, Shri Ishwar Singh, is also not acceptable in view of the fact that at the time of admission in the primary school, the admission form was signed by his father only and the admission rules were categoric to the point that subsequent change in date of birth was not permissible. This mistake was not a bonafide mistake.
(iv) The petitioners contention for medical examination also cannot be entertained as such a proposition is not contemplated in government guidelines. While summing up the respondents observed that no independent evidence is available to support the case and hence it is rejected.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that date of birth certificate issued by the public authority is an admissible evidence. The respondents have not recorded any reason to dis-approve the genuineness of this certificate. Further the rejection of affidavit by the uncle and grand mother of the applicant solely on the ground that they are close relatives is not legally sustainable in view of the fact that in Indian society, it is only the close relatives who alone remain present at the time of birth. Besides, the respondents have not given any reason for not believing the contents of affidavit filed by the grandmother and uncle of the applicant. Simply the rejection of the affidavit filed by the father in regard to primary school admission form which is not supported by any legally required certificate despite the fact that as per Punjab Education Code, it was required to be done so, is also not legally sustainable. Thus, the date of birth recorded in the admission form, which is based on no evidence, cannot act as an estoppel on the applicant to challenge it. Date of birth has been wrongly mentioned in the school admission form. The respondents should have appreciated the context in which the date of birth was given in the form.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the medical examination of the applicant is a legally sustainable evidence in the eyes of law in view of the fact that an Experts evidence is materially conclusive and is always more reliable. Simply because there is no rule, for this the respondents cannot say in the instant case that medical examination was not permissible. Thus he argued that the action of the respondents is illegal, unjust and bad in the eyes of law and the order dated 14.02.2003 is clearly unsustainable in law. Therefore, the present OA be allowed and the respondents be directed to make necessary correction in the date of birth recorded in the service record, as claimed by the applicant.
11. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant drew my attention to the admission form of the applicant at Annexure R/R-1, the affidavit filed by the uncle (Annexure R/R-2), the affidavit of Ishwar Singh the father of the applicant at Annexure R/R-3, the extract of the State Education Board at Annexure R/R-4, the medical report for age issued by the MBS Hospital, Kota at Annexure R/R-5, the copy of Passport issued on 05.02.2001 from Ahmedabad at Annexure R/R-6, the copy of the Driving Licence issued on 29.09.1999 (Annexure -2) and the copy of Individual Mediclaim issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. from 14.03.2005 to 13.03.2006 (Annexure -2).
12. To support his averments, learned counsel for the applicant referred to following judgments:-
(i) Mr. Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee vs. Union of India & Others, 1984 ILLJ 402 Cal. Decided on 12.05.1983.
(ii) Narinder Kaur vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court & Others, 2011 (11) SCC 553.
(iii) Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit AIR 1988 SCC 1796
(iv) Resham Singh vs. Union of India & Another [CWP No. 13722 of 2007 dediced on 06.11.2007]
(v) Jiwan Kishore vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, AIR 1980 SC 1251.
(vi) Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha & Ors.
AIR 1965 SC 282
(vii) Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar AIR 2004 SC 230
13. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant, Shri Ramesh Chander, has made a representation dated 17.08.1995 for change in his date of birth from 05.04.1963 to 09.05.1964. The request of the applicant was examined in the Board but the same was rejected and the applicant was informed vide letter dated 29.01.1998. The request of the applicant was again considered in view of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in OA No. 39/97 and was rejected as the same was found to be devoid of merit. The rejection order passed by the Board dated 11.10.2000 was communicated to the applicant by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad vide its letter dated 15.10.2000. Thereafter the applicant filed another OA No. 373/2001 stating that the rejection letter is not a speaking letter. The Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench vide its order dated 04.07.2002 quashed and set aside the order dated 15.10.2000 and 11.10.2000 and directed to reconsider the case of the applicant on merit and pass a detailed speaking order under intimation to the applicant.
Accordingly, the case of the applicant was again reconsidered in the Board and passed the speaking order dated 14.02.2003 rejecting the request of the applicant for correcting his date of birth. In the meanwhile, when the representation of the applicant was under consideration, the applicant filed OA No. 63/2003 before the Ahmedabad Bench, which was dismissed as premature. Subsequently, a Review Application No. 80/2004 filed by the applicant was also dismissed by the Honble Tribunal vide order dated 06.10.2004.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that now the applicant has filed OA No. 553/2004 against the order of the respondents dated 14.02.2003 vide which the request of the applicant has been rejected for correction of date of birth in service record. This OA was dismissed by the CAT Jaipur Bench, Jaipur vide its order dated 25.01.2005 on the ground of limitation. This order was challenged by the applicant in the Honble High Court and the Honble High Court vide its order dated 15.07.2009 remanded back the matter to this Tribunal to decide the OA on merit.
15. With regard to the averments made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the date of birth certificate issued by a public authority is an admissible evidence, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that on Inquiry from Rajgarh Municipality and SDM Rajgarh, it was found that the certificate was issued on the basis of an application and affidavits furnished by the applicant. The Municipality had not conducted an independent verification to establish the veracity of the revised date of birth. An affidavit furnished by the interest party cannot be treated as independent corroborative evidence to support the case for change of date of birth. Hence the birth certificate dated 18.08.1994 issued by the Executive Officer, Rajgarh Municipality is not considered as adequate independent evidence for change in date of birth of the applicant. The applicant earlier furnished his date of birth at the time of entrance in service which was also based on the documents furnished by him. Now the applicant cannot get benefit of review date of birth on the basis of a certificate which has been issued after entrance in the service.
16. He further argued that the respondents have not erred in law in view of the fact that affidavits of close relatives do not constitute independent corroborative evidences regarding correct date of birth at a later stage after entrance in service. With regard to the averment of the learned counsel for the applicant that affidavit filed by the father of the applicant could not have been rejected as evidence by the respondents, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the extract of the record from the concerned primary school furnished by the applicant clearly indicates his date of birth as 05.04.1963 (Annexure R/R-1). The relevant extract is signed by Shri Ishwar Singh, father of the applicant, on 24.04.1968. A note is appended on the extract which states that no change of the date of birth given in the above statement can be made subsequently. This was clearly not a bonafide mistake and the applicants father was well aware that the date of birth cannot be changed subsequently.
17. With regard to the averment of the learned counsel for the applicant that medical certificate for age given by the applicant could not have been rejected as evidence, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the case of the applicant was required to be processed as per guidelines of Government of India. Since rules do not provide for medical examination for the purpose of determining date of birth, therefore, being not permissible, medical certificate was not considered as evidence in this case.
18. He also argued that matter of change of date of birth is of a civil nature, therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide about the change in the date of birth. The applicant should approach Civil Court in the matter.
19. To support his arguments, he referred to the following judgments:-
(i) State of Gujarat & Others vs. Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi, AIR 2006 SC 2735
(ii) State of Rajasthan Thros Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur & Others vs. Gulab Chand Jain 2012 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 127
(iii) Surjit Kaur Sandhu vs. Union of India & Others All India Service Law Journal 2009 (1) CAT 24
(iv) State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Premlal Shrivas, 2011 (9) SCC 664
(v) Union of India & Others vs. Saroj Bala (Mrs.) 1996 (2) SCC 81
(vi) U.P. Madhyamid Shiksha Parishad & Others vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, AIR 2005 SC 2491.
(vii) Shri Upendra Singh vs. Union of India & Others (OA No. 251/2007 decided on 12.08.2008 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench).
20. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and after careful perusal of the documents on record and the judgments referred to by both the parties, I am of the opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any case for interference of this Tribunal. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the Department of Revenue dated 14.02.2003 (Annexure A/6) vide which the request of the applicant for change of date of birth from 05.04.1963 to 09.05.1964 has been rejected. I find that it is a speaking and reasoned order. With regard to the birth certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Rajgarh Municipality,Churu (Rajasthan), it has been stated in this order that on inquiry from Rajgarh Municipality and SDM Rajgarh, it transpirs that the certificate was issued on the basis of an application and affidavit furnished by the applicant, Shri Ramesh Chander, to SDM Rajgarh (Churu), who in turn issued directions to Executive Officer, Rajgarh, Municipality. An affidavit furnished by the interest party that is applicant cannot be treated as independent corroborative evidence to support his case for change in date of birth from 05.04.1963 to 09.05.1964. In his order dated 04.08.1994, the SDM has directed the local Municipal authority to issue the birth certificate after payment of late fee of Rs.5/-, indicating the date of birth in the order itself. The Municipal authorities had not conducted any independent verification to establish the veracity of the revised date of birth. Hence the birth certificate dated 10.08.1994 issued by the Executive Officer, Rajgarh Municipality, therefore, cannot be accepted as adequate independent evidence for change in date of birth of the applicant, Shri Ramesh Chander by the respondents. I do not find any infirmity/illegality in these averments of the respondents. The law referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Narinder Kaur vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court & Others, 2011 (11) SCC 553 is not applicable in the facts & circumstances of the present case. The facts & circumstances of the case referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant are quite different than the facts & circumstances of the present case.
21. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the judgment of the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Resham Singh vs. Union of India & Another [CWP 13722 of 2007 decided on 06.11.2007], in which in Para No. 14 of the judgment, the Court has held that:-
14 At this stage, it is also required to be noted that normally when there is a discrepancy in the date of birth in the certificate issued by the competent authority under the provisions of the Births and Deaths Registration Act as well as school leaving certificate, in that case, primacy is required to be given to the birth certificate issued by the Municipality and the competent Government Authority under the Births and Deaths Registration Act, unless it is on verification of such documents, a doubt is created and/or authority is not satisified with regard to the genuineness of the same. It is also required to be noted that when there is dispute with regard to genuineness of the date of birth and/or certificate, then certainly the passport authority can refuse to make necessary correction and/or change in the passport with regard to the date of birth and/or place of birth is concerned and may insist for order from the Court. In this case, the respondents have not relied upon the birth certificate issued by the authority concerned for the reasons recorded in the order dated 14.02.2003 (Annexure A/6). Therefore, the ratio laid down in this case is not applicable in the facts & circumstances of the present case.
22. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 230. He drew my attention to Para No. 34 of the judgment, which reads as under:-
34. Under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, a register maintained in terms of a statute or by a statutory authority in regular course of business would be a relevant fact. Had such a vital evidence been produced. It would clinched the issue. The respondents did not choose to do so. As stated earlier, the respondents have clearly spelt out detailed reasons for not accepting the birth certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Rajgarh Municipality, Churu, Rajasthan on 10.08.1994. Therefore, the ratio decided by the Honble Supreme Court in this judgment is also not applicable in the present OA.
Similarly for the same reasons, the ratio decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha & Others, AIR 1965 SC 282, is also not applicable in the facts & circumstances of the present OA.
23. Learned counsel for the applicant had referred to Para No. 6 of the judgment of the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mr. Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee vs. Union of India & Others, 1984 ILLJ 402 Cal. Decided on 12.05.1983, which reads as under:-
6. ..
In my view, the impugned decision of the respondent No. 1 in this case as communicated to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is authentic proof in the shape of the school leaving certificate of the petitioner who is found to be unimpeachable, that his date of birth is 8th July, 1928. In the present OA, the request of the applicant is that his date of birth should not be taken as per his school certificate including his High School, Graduation Degree and service record etc. but it should be taken from the date of birth issued by the Executive Officer, Rajgarh Municipality, Churu, Rajasthan. It is not disputed that date of birth of the applicant as per his Metric Certificate his 05.04.1963. Therefore, under these circumstances, the ratio decided by this High Court does not give any relief to the applicant in the present OA. Thus the action of the respondents in accepting the date of birth as per School Certificate, Metric Certificate and Service record is just and legal.
24. The respondents in their letter dated 14.02.2003 (Annexure A/6) have stated that the applicant has furnished photocopy of affidavits dated 09.06.1995 of Shri Netrapal Singh, his maternal uncle and Smt. Gyasudevi, his grandmother. These affidavits are furnished by close relative of the applicant and therefore, do not constitute independent corroborative evidence regarding the correct date of birth.
25. The respondents have further stated that the applicant has furnished an affidavit of Shri Ishwar Singh, his father dated 20.09.1999 wherein Shri Ishwar Singh had stated that he had entered the incorrect date of birth of Shri Ramesh Chander i.e. 05.04.1963 at the time of admission to Primary School in April 1968 since the minimum age for admission was 5 years and Shri Ramesh Chander could not have been admitted to Primary School if his date of birth was shown as 09.05.1964. An extract of the record from the concerned Primary School furnished by Shri Ramesh Chander clearly indicates the date of birth as 05.04.1963. The relevant extract is signed by Shri Ishwar Singh on 24.04.1968. A note is appended to the extract which states that no change of the date of birth given in the above statement can be made subsequently. It appears that Shri Ishwar Singh, father of Shri Ramesh Chander deliberately recorded the date of birth of Shri Ramesh Chander as 05.04.1963 at the time of admission to Primary School. This was clearly not a bonafide mistake and the applicants father was well aware that the date of birth cannot be changed subsequently. Consequently, the plea of the applicant in his representation dated 26.12.2002 that the father of the applicant had mentioned the incorrect date of birth inadvertently while admitting the applicant cannot be accepted. A perusal of affidavit of Shri Ishwar Singh at Annexure R/R-3 shows that father of the applicant intentionally had recorded the date of birth of the applicant as 05.04.1963 to take advantage of admission of his son in the Primary School. Therefore, in my opinion the conclusion of the respondents that it is not a bonafide mistake is correct.
26. Learned counsel for the applicant drew my attention to Para No. 12 of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796, whrein the Honble Supreme Court as observed as under:-
12. .The entry in the scholar register may be contradicted by the birth entry or entry in the vaccination register or reliable horoscope or any other reliable or weighty oral or documentary evidence but in the absence of such contradicting weighty evidence, the entries in the scholar register and other records of the educational institution would, in my opinion, certainly enjoy such probative value. He argued that on the basis of this ratio decided by the Honble Supreme Court, the respondent department could have given weightage to the birth certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Rajgarh Municiaplity, Churu, Rajasthan. However, the Honble Supreme Court in Para No.14 of the said judgment has observed as under:-
14 .Parents or near relations having special knowledge are the best persons to depose about the date of birth of a person. If entry regarding date of birthin the scholar register is made on the information given by parents or some one having special knowledge of the fact, the same would have probative value .. If the entry in the scholars register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value. In the present OA, the entry in the admission form of the school was made by none other than the father of the applicant. Therefore, as per the ratio decided by the Honble Supreme Court in this Para, the entry made in the admission form will have evidentiary value. If subsequently, date of birth is changed on the information of the father, it could not constitute independent corroborative evidence regarding correct date of birth.
27. Learned counsel for the applicant also heavily relied on the medical certificate for age issued by the MBS Hospital, Kota and he argued that medical examination by an expert body will be materially conclusive and reliable evidence and to support his averment, he referred to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jiwan Kishore vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 1980 SC 1251. In this case, the Honble Supreme Court has held that there was a considerable discrepancy with regard to age of the employee, the year of birth according to one record was 1917 and according to another record, it was 1927. In view of this considerable discrepancy, the Delhi Transport Corporation appointed its Medical Board to fix the age of the appellant and according to the assessment of the age by the Medical Board, it was seen that he was 51 on 13.06.1975. The Honble Supreme Court held that they have no reason to ignore this scientific fixation of age when they had records which are flagrantly conflicting. But in this case, the age difference is about one year only. According to the school record and the service record of the applicant, the date of birth of the applicant is 05.04.1963 and according to his own version based on affidavits and close relatives based on birth certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Rajgarh Municipality, Churu, Rajasthan, it is 09.05.1964. Thus there is no considerable difference for the age as recorded in the school, college & service record of the applicant and as claimed by the applicant. Moreover, the case of Jiwan Kishore vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, AIR 1980 SC 1251, the Delhi Transport Corporation had sent the employee to the Medical Board to examine the age of the employee but in this case as learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no provision in the Government guidelines regarding change in the date of birth on the basis of such medical examination. Therefore, the request of the applicant for medical examination for age was not accepted by the respondents. The applicant himself went to the hospital and got examined for fixation of his age. Therefore, the ratio decided by the Honble Supreme court in the case of Jiwan Kishore vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another is not applicable in the present OA.
28. The respondents in their letter dated 14.02.2003 (Annexure A/6) have further stated that as per the report dated 15.05.1996, received from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, the applicant has consistently shown his date of birth as 05.04.1963 in school and college records and also in the records of the National Academy of Direct Taxes, Nagpur, at the time of entry into the Indian Revenue Service. Therefore, they have come to the conclusion that no independent evidence is available to support the case of the applicant for change of date of birth from 05.04.1963 to 09.05.1964.
29. A perusal of the copy of the Passport issued on 05.02.2001 (Annexure R/R-6), copy of the Driving License issued on 29.09.1999 (Annexure -2) and copy of the individual mediclaim policy issued by the Oriental Insurance Company from 14.03.2005 to 13.03.2006 (Annexure-2) shows that all these documents have been issued after the applicant has given his representation to the respondents for the change of his date of birth in 1995. The date of birth under these records must have been recorded based on the information given by the applicant himself, which is not in accordance with his Metric Certificate or as per the date of birth recorded in the service record. Therefore, these documents cannot be relied upon as evidence for change of date of birth.
30. Thus after considering the averments made by the parties and after going though the material on record and the legal position, I am of the view that there is no infirmity/illegality in the letter No. A-21016/3/95-Ad.VI(A) dated 14.02.2003 issued by the Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, Department of Revenue rejecting the application for change in the date of birth of the applicant. Thus the present OA has no merit.
31. Consequently, the OA being bereft of merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Anil Kumar) Member (A) AHQ