Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.44 seconds)Union Of India vs Harnam Singh on 9 February, 1993
In Union of India v. Harnam Singhthis Court considered the question whether the employer was justified in declining the respondent's request for correction of the 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 original application filed by him. While reversing the order of the Tribunal, this Court observed: (SCC pp. 167-68, para 7)
Secretary & Commissioner, Home ... vs R. Kirubakaran on 21 September, 1993
(iii) In SECRETARY & COMMISSIONER, HOME... v. R.KIRUBAKARAN [AIR 1993 SC 2647], the Hon'ble Apex Court emphatically stated as follows:
State Of U.P. And Ors vs Smt. Gulaichi on 25 July, 2003
(iv) In STATE OF U.P. AND ORS v. SMT.GULAICHI [2003 (6) 483], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
State Of Assam & Anr vs Daksha Prasad Deka & Ors on 23 October, 1970
In the case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka (1970 (3) SCC 624), this Court said that the date of the compulsory retirement "must in our judgment, be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected consistently with the appropriate procedure."
Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr vs M. Hayagreev Sarma on 6 April, 1990
In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagreev Sarma (1990 (2) SCC 682) the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 were considered . The public servant concerned had claimed correction of his date of birth with reference to the births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal corrected the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, in view of the entry in the births and deaths register ignoring the rules framed by the State Government referred to above. It was inter alia observed by this Court:
Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) ... vs Rangadhar Mallik on 3 September, 1992
In Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and Ors. v Rangadhar Mallik (1993 Supp.(1) SCC 763), Rule 65 of the Orissa General Finance Rules, was examined which provides that representation made for correction of date of birth near about the time of superannuation shall not be entertained.........................................
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016
(v) In STATE OF PUNJAB v. ORS. v. S.C.CHADHA [ 2004 (3) SCC 394], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as follows:
Reg.Gen., High Court Of Madras vs M. Manickam & Ors on 17 August, 2011
(vi) In THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS v. M.MANICKAM AND ORS [2011 (9) SCC 245], it has been stated as follows:
State Of Punjab vs Mohinder Singh & Ors on 28 September, 2007
In State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh reported in (2005) 3 SCC 702, this Court had occasion to deal with the evidentiary value of horoscope as proof of date of birth. It was held in that decision that a horoscope is very weak piece of material to prove age of a person and in most of the cases the maker may not be available to prove that it was prepared immediately after the birth and therefore a heavy onus lies on the person who wants to press it to prove its authenticity. It was further held that in fact a horoscope to be treated as evidence in terms of Section 32(5) of Evidence Act, 1872, it must be proved to have been made by a person having special means of knowledge as regards authenticity of the date, time etc. mentioned therein. In that context horoscopes have been held to be inadmissible in proof of age.