REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  3615  OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20794 of 2008]

CIDCO …Appellant

Versus

Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar       …Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

S.B. SINHA, J :   

1. Leave granted.

2. The Date of Birth of the respondent is in question in this appeal which  

arises  out  of a judgment and order  dated 17.04.2008 passed by the High  

Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6962 of 2006.

3. Respondent herein joined the services of the appellant – Corporation  

on 18.01.1971.  She disclosed her date of birth to be 2.10.1950.

4. According to the appellant – corporation, in the year 1975, in response  

to a memo dated 25.07.1975, the respondent submitted a form giving the  

details of her date of birth, educational qualification and experience wherein  

the date of birth was typed as 2.10.1948.  However, the year was corrected  

in handwriting as 1950 by way of interpolation.  

5. Respondent  was  posted  in  the  Personnel  Department  in  various  

capacities during the period from 14.01.1980 to 6.07.1988.

6. On 16.01.1997, a letter was issued to the respondent for production of  

copies of school leaving certificate, but she did not submit the same.  Again,  

an  office  order  was  issued  on  26.02.2004  and  16.06.2004  asking  the  

respondent  to  submit  the  documents.   However,  the  respondent  did  not  

submit copies of the school leaving certificate and claimed that her original  

certificates including the school leaving certificate had been misplaced.

7. On  11.04.2005,  the  respondent  was  again  asked  to  produce  the  

required  documents  and  the  respondent  by  a  letter  dated  19.04.2005  

informed that she had submitted all the documents at the time of joining the  

service and these documents had been misplaced.   

2

8. However,  the  respondent  submitted  a  copy  of  the  birth  certificate  

dated 3.04.2000 issued by the Chief Officer, Panvel Nagar Parishad.  The  

said certificate shows the date of birth of the respondent to be 2.10.1950 as  

recorded in the register of births maintained by the Parishad.

9.  Respondent  has  also  produced  various  documents  issued  by  the  

appellant – corporation, viz., seniority list, gradation list, retirement list, etc.  

In all these documents, the date of birth of the respondent was shown as  

2.10.1950.

10. The Manager (Personnel) of the appellant – Corporation by an order  

dated 26.12.2007 held the date of birth of the respondent as 2.10.1948.  For  

arriving  at  the  said  conclusion,  the  appellant  –  Corporation  took  into  

consideration various documents, including application made at the time of  

admission to the school for the respondent and her sisters, the school leaving  

certificates of the producer and her sisters, the admission register given by  

the Head Mistress of the School indicating the date of birth record of the  

respondent, etc.  In all these documents, the date of birth of the respondent  

was shown as 2.10.1950.  The Manager (Personnel) in support of his order  

dated 26.12.2007 assigned the following reasons:

3

“She states that the birth certificate issued by the  Panvel Municipal Council based on the entry in the  v.f.  no.  14  Register  of  Births  and  Deaths  is  the  proof of the birth date.  Similarly, these certificates  are issued as per  the Birth and Death Act,  1886  and  the  Maharashtra  Birth  Death  Registration  Rules,  1976,  as  such  she  also  says  that  these  should  be  accepted  as  proof.   However,  when  Shrimati Mandwilkar or her sisters were born, the  above mentioned Act was not in existence at all.  The  v.f.  no.  14  is  a  form  of  the  Revenue  Department and the same used to be kept with the  police patil of the village for census.  In this form  the names of the girl children born and the dates  are written with different handwriting.  Therefore,  it cannot be said that the name of the same girl has  been  written  against  the  date  of  which  she  was  born and therefore this is not a credible proof.  As  the Panvel Municipal Council has given the birth  certificates based on that register only, those also  cannot be believed.  Shri Narayan Shrirang Surve,  the  father  of  Shrimati  Mandwilkar  has  himself  admitted his children in school and has stated the  exact  dates  of  birth  of  the  daughters  instead  of  telling  approximate  dates.   When  birth  date  is  stated  approximately  at  the  time  of  taking  admission in  school,  it  is  a  practice  to  generally  record 1st June as the birth date.  However, it has  not happened in this case.  The father himself has  mentioned  the  birth  dates  of  his  children  at  the  time of admission in school and, therefore,  those  should be considered as more trustworthy.”

In the said order, it was held:

“However, there is no substance in this statement  of hers.  The date mentioned in the seniority list or  

4

the date mentioned in the details attached with the  order of the housing loan cannot be considered as a  proof  of  the  birth  date.   Whatever  details  are  mentioned  in  the  personal  file  of  the  concerned  employee, the same details are mentioned by the  lower  grade  employees  doing  this  work  while  preparing  the  seniority  list  or  the  order  for  the  housing loan.  If the original detail is wrong and is  not corrected, it continues to be as it is.  Therefore,  no  employee  can  lay  claim  on  anything  on  the  basis of that detail.”

 11. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the said order, the respondent filed a  

Writ  Petition  before  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay  which  by  

reason of the impugned judgment has been allowed, observing:

“14. Consequently, whenever there is a variance  between an unproved private document or its copy  and a certified extract of a public record, the latter  must  prevail  as  it  has  more  probative  value,  carrying the presumption as it does under Section  79 of the Evidence Act.  This presumption would  continue  to  hold  until  it  is  rebutted.   It  can  be  rebutted only by production of the original public  record  from  which  the  extract  is  made  out  and  certified to be true by the relevant authority.  Only  if it is so rebutted such certified copy issued by a  public authority would stand nullified.”   

12. Mr.  Bhasme,  learned counsel appearing on behalf  of  the appellant,  

would submit:

5

(i) The register of births and deaths maintaining, inter alia, the date of  

birth  is  not  conclusive and in  any event  the  Municipal  Council  

having been constituted in the year 1976, i.e., much after the entry  

in service by the respondent, no reliance can be placed thereupon.

(ii) Respondent being in the Personnel  Department of the appellant,  

interpolation in the record was not  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  

authorities and when it came to their notice, they issued the memo  

and obtained the certificate from the school authorities.

13. Mr.  Vinay  Navare,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

respondent, on the other hand, urged:

(i) In all the records maintained by the Corporation, the date of birth  

of the respondent has been shown to be 2.10.1950.

(ii) Although Municipal Council came into being in 1976, but, earlier  

the  records  used  to  be  maintained  by  the  panchayat  under  the  

provisions of the Births, Deaths & Marriage Registration Act, 1886  

and as such the entries made in terms of the statutory provisions  

shall prevail over the entry made in the school leaving certificate.

6

(iii) The reasons assigned by the Manager (Personnel) of the appellant -  

Corporation  holding  that  the  respondent’s  date  of  birth  is  

2.10.1948 are wholly perverse and are based on conjectures and  

surmises.

(iv) As the records of the appellant clearly show that the date of birth  

of  the respondent is  2.10.1950, it  was not  necessary for him to  

make a representation.

(v) Entries made in terms of the statutory provisions shall prevail over  

the entry made in the school leaving certificate particularly when  

the  details  of  dates  of  birth  of  the  brothers  and  sisters  of  the  

respondent had clearly been provided by the Chief Officer, Panvel  

Municipal Council by a letter dated 28.12.2007 addressed to the  

Manager (Labour) of the appellant – Corporation.  

14. We have noticed hereinbefore that what for the so-called charge of  

interpolation  of  service  records  in  regard  to  the  year  of  birth,  the  office  

records  categorically  shown that  the  date  of  birth  of  the  respondent  was  

2.10.1950.  A large number of documents have been produced in support of  

the said contention by the respondent.  We may notice some of them.  In the  

gradation  list  of  Field  Officer  as  on  1.4.1986  issued  on  11.4.1986,  the  

7

respondent’s name figured at serial No.17 showing his date of birth to be  

2.10.1950.  The same date of birth has been shown in the seniority list as on  

1.4.1987 published on 11.4.1986 (sic) at  serial  No.16.   Yet  again,  in the  

retirement list of CIDCO employees, the respondent’s date of birth has been  

shown to be 2.10.1950.

15. A  list  of  employees  retiring  in  the  year  2006  was  published  on  

30.9.2005 wherein the respondent’s  name did not  figure.   In fact,  it  was  

shown that in other documents, the year of her superannuation was shown to  

be 2008.  Appellant had issued a memo.  The respondent replied thereto by a  

letter  dated  19.4.2005  wherein  she  categorically  mentioned  that  she  had  

produced the copy of the birth certificate issued by the Panvel Municipal  

Council on many occasions.  She had also produced copy of the graduation  

certificate  and  birth  certificate  from  the  said  Council.   She,  therefore,  

requested the appellant to accept her date of birth as 2.10.1950.   

Although criticism has been made by Shri Bhasme in regard to the  

certificate  issued by the Panvel Municipal Council  on the premise that  it  

having itself been constituted in the year 1976, could not have issued the  

said certificate; we may notice that the Municipal Council in its letter dated  

28.12.2007 issued to the Manager (Labour) CIDCO, not only disclosed the  

8

date of birth of the respondent but also her other sisters brothers.  Veracity  

and/or genuineness of the said certificate is not in question.   

16. Mr.  Navare  furthermore  appears  to  be  right  in  contending  that  

although  the  Municipal  Council  came  into  being  in  1976,  the  statutory  

records  of  birth  and death  used to  be maintained  by its  predecessor,  the  

Gram Panchayat.  The said statement appears to be correct as would appear  

from a letter dated 3.11.2006 by the Panvel Municipal Council addressed to  

the  Manager  (Labour)  of  the  appellant  stating  that  the  said  certificate  is  

issued  as  per  the  original  record  of  deaths  and birth  with  the  Municipal  

Council.

17. It is of some significance to notice that the appellant for the first time,  

by  its  office  letter  dated  4.10.2006  stated  that  the  employees  mentioned  

therein including the respondent would retire in the month of October 2006.  

We  have  been  taken  through  the  order  dated  26.2.2007  passed  by  the  

Manager  (Personnel)  of  the  appellant  holding  the  date  of  birth  of  the  

respondent as 2.10.1948 which runs into 23 pages.   

We  may,  however,  notice  that  the  reasons  assigned  by  the  said  

authority are wholly unacceptable.  Some of the reasons assigned by him are  

perverse.   

9

18. Only because the respondent for some time had been working in the  

personnel department, the same by itself, in our opinion, cannot be held to  

constitute  sufficient  proof  to show that  an interpolation was made at  her  

instance  particularly  when the certificate  issued by the  Panvel  Municipal  

Council was available with the Corporation as far back as in the year 1976.  

If an allegation is made that a lower grade employee was responsible for  

withholding the said document from the higher authorities,  proof therefor  

was necessary.  It is wholly unlikely that the seniority list of the officers  

which are prepared by the higher authorities would contain the same mistake  

as purported to have been committed by the lower authorities.   

19. Appellant prima facie is bound by its own records.  If any fraud is  

alleged, it must be proved.  Only because there appears to be a so-called  

interpolation,  the  same by itself  would not  lead to  a  conclusion  that  the  

respondent had supplied a wrong date of birth.   

20. The Deaths and Births register maintained by the statutory authorities  

raises  a  presumption  of  correctness.   Such  entries  made  in  the  statutory  

registers  are admissible in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the Indian  

Evidence Act.  It would prevail over an entry made in the school register,  

particularly, in absence of any proof that same was recorded at the instance  

1 0

of the guardian of the respondent.  [See Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit  

[AIR 1988 SC 1796]

21. For  the  reasons  aforementioned,  we  do  not  find  any  merit  in  this  

appeal which is dismissed accordingly with costs.  Counsel’s fee assessed at  

Rs.50,000/-.

……………………………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

..…………………………..…J.     [Asok Kumar Ganguly]

New Delhi; May 15, 2009

1 1