Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)Union Of India vs Harnam Singh on 9 February, 1993
In this context, it is pertinent to note Rule 38 of Maharashtra Civil Service (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981. Instruction No. 1 of the said Rule lays down that normally, no application for alteration of entry regarding date of birth as recorded in the service book or service roll of a Government servant, should be entertained after a period of five years commencing from the date of his entry in Government service. Therefore, the rule requires applications to be made within the period of five years calculated from the date of entry in Government service. However, the said rule does not cover the cases where knowledge itself was derived later on. In the instant case, the applicant has made a representation within the time limit of five years from the date of knowledge and, therefore, his application/representation should be considered on merits. Impugned order quotes judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh.
The Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi ... vs The Registrar, Central Administrative ... on 23 April, 2002
However, it may be noticed that this judgment in Ramaswamy's case is contrary to the judgment in Harnamsingh (supra) wherein it has been held that the Government servant is not precluded from seeking correction of his date of birth. Moreover, in the present case, the applicant is seeking correction in the State Government service book and such correction would automatically bind the Central Government which is merely an accepting authority.
U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad & Ors vs Raj Kumar Agnihotri on 21 April, 2005
(iv) In the case of State of U.P. Madhymik Shiksha Parishad & Others Vs. Rajkumar Agnihotri [2005 (11) SCC 465] there was a particular rule, viz., Rule No. 2, which mentioned that the date of birth of a Government servant which is recorded in the Matriculation Certificate shall be the conclusive proof and no representation can be entertained for correction of date of birth. In view of this specific rule, the date of birth was not changed in the said case. However, the facts of this case are totally different and rule for correction of date of birth is also not the same.
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vs State Of U.P on 12 May, 2006
(v) In Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P. [2006 (5) SCC 584] the question of determination of age of juvenile offender came up before the Ho'ble Supreme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that Section 35 of Evidence Act would be applicable to Civil as well as Criminal cases and the documents admissible in evidence under Section 35 should be of such a nature that it is a public or official Register and entry therein has been made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty and it is a public document. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the question of date of birth is required to be decided for variety of purposes such as for obtaining admission, appointment, contesting elections, registration of marriage, litigation before the Civil Court and in any of such cases, the Court of Law will have to apply the same standard as required in Section 35 of the Evidence Act. No different standard should be applied because Article 21 of the Constitution is abridged which guarantee right to life and livelihood.
State Of Gujarat & Ors vs Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi on 19 July, 2006
(vi) In the case of State of Gujarat & Others Vs. Vali Mohamad Dosabhai Sindhi [2006 VI SCC 537] Rule 171 of Bombay Civil Service Rules was involved, which is identical to Rule 38 of Maharashtra Civil Service (General Conditions of Services) Rule, 1981. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that there are several rules governing request to change of date of birth. One of them is Rule 171 of the Bombay Civil Services Rule, 1959. This rule clearly provides that the request made for alteration of date of birth should not be entertained after the preparation of the Service Book of the Government servant and in any event not after the completion of the probation period or after five years of continuous service, whichever was earlier. The said rule categorically provides that once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in the Service Book, no alteration of the entry afterwards should be allowed unless it is shown that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than individual in question or is an obvious clerical error. In the instant case, there has been obvious error on the part of the Head Master in recording unverified date of birth and there has been further error on the part of the State Government in not directing the petitioner to produce birth certificate at the time of his appointment in service.
Desh Raj vs Bodh Raj on 30 November, 2007
(vii) In the case of Desh Raj Vs. Bodh Raj [2008 (2) SCC 186] Section 35 of Evidence Act was referred and entry in the birth certificate were taken into consideration. It was held that an entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentary value to prove the ate of the person in the absence of material on which the age was recorded. The entries regarding dates of birth contained in the school register and the secondary school examination have no probative value, as no person on whose information the date of birth of the aforesaid candidates was mentioned in the school record, was examined. In the absence of the connecting evidence, the documents produced by the respondents, to prove the age of the aforesaid two candidates have no evidentary value. The Court further held that unless the parents or persons conversant with their date of birth were examined, the entry in the school register by itself will not have much evidentary value.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Commissioner Of Police,Bombay & Anr vs Bhagwan V. Lahane on 26 November, 1996
(ii) The Commissioner of Police, Bombay & Another Vs. Bhagwan V. Lahane [1997 (1) SCC 247] This case deals with Rule 38 of Maharashtra Civil Service (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981, it is observed that the petitioner therein, namely , Bhagwan Lahane, did not produce Secondary School Certificate which contains his date of birth as 12.11.1948. Although he made a representation within time, which was rejected later on, his proof of correct date of birth was found to be suspicious and, therefore, on facts the application was rejected. In the present case, the applicant has furnished irrefutable and reliable proof of his date of birth and has approached the Tribunal within a prescribed period of five years from the date of knowledge. Sub-rule 2(f) of Rule 38 of Maharashtra Civil Service (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981, requires that when once the entry of age or date of birth has been made in the service book, no alteration of the entry should afterwards be allowed unless it is known that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some persons other than individual in question or is an obvious clerical error. However, the said provisions cannot be applied in the case of the applicant because his erroneous date of birth was recorded in the school records and carried into service records. The extract of birth certificate which is a conclusive proof of date of birth bears true and correct date of birth. But knowledge of the same was acquired by the applicant in the year 2003 and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to point out his correct date of birth within five years of acquisition of knowledge and the State Government is required to consider and decide the issue of correction of date of birth in accordance with and with reference to the documents referred to in Rule 38.
1