http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,BOMBAY & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BHAGWAN V. LAHANE

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Dalay condoned.      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Maharashtra  Administrative Tribunal, made on October 6, 1992 in OA No.1511 of 1991. The respondent was selected as a Sub-Inspector and  sent for  training on  July 15,  1974. On successful completition thereof, he was appointed and gained entry into  the service  on July  1, 1976. As per Rule 36 of the  Maharashtra   Civil  Services  (General  Conditions  of Service Rules,  1981 (for short, the ‘Rules’) which repealed earlier orders  and  came  into  force  on  15.8.1981  would indicate that once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in  a service  book, the  same  shall  not  be  altered afterwards unless it is shown that the entry was due to want of  care  on  the  part  of  some  persons  other  than  the individual in  question or  that it  is an  obvious clerical error. Instructions  have been  issued in  that behalf which reads as under:      "Instruction-(1)    Normally,    no      application for  alternation of the      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  is      Government Service.      (2)  subject   to  (1)  above,  the      correct  date   of   birth   of   a      Government      servant       maybe      determined, if he furnishes a proof      of age  in  any  of  the  following      terms:-      (a) His  own statement or that of a      parent,   guardian,    friend    or      relative;      (b)  School   leaving  certificate,      secondary    school     certificate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    examination/Matriculation      certificate      or      University      certificate;      (c)  Extract   from  a   birth   or      baptismal register;      (d) Horoscope;      (e)  Entry  in  family  records  or      accounts books."      The respondent  made an  application in  1982  for  the correction of  his date  of birth  on the  ground  that  his correct date  of birth  was June  6, 1951 and it was wrongly entered in  the service  register as  November 12,  1948. It appears that  the representation  was rejected  in 1983.  He filed the  OA in  1991 for  the correction  of the  date  of birth. The  Tribunal in  the impugned  order, accepting  the case of  the  respondent,  has  directed  the  appellant  to correct the  date of  birth. Thus,  this appeal  by  special leave.      It is  not in  dispute that the respondent had produced Secondary School Leaving Certificate which contains his date of birth  as November  12, 1948.  One  of  the  instructions indicates that  his own  statement  or  that  of  a  parent, guardian, friend or relative on the date of entry in service and also  the High  School  Leaving  Certificate,  Secondary School Certificate Examination, Matriculation Certificate or University Certificate,  is the  relevant document  for that purpose. The  respondent, admittedly,  filed  his  Secondary School Leaving Certificate at the time of entry into service on the basis of which his date of birth was reflected in the service register  as November 12, 1948. The respondent ought to have  produced the  reliable material  to show  that  the birth date  mentioned in  the School Leaving Certificate was incorrect. No such material was produced by him. The extract from  birth   register  produced   by  him  along  with  his representation being  inconsistent with  the School  Leaving Certificate produced by him earlier, he ought to have proved to the  satisfaction of  the competent authority that he was given a  name before  or soon  after his  birth and that his name was  entered in  the birth  register  at  the  time  or registration of  his birth, ordinarily, a child is not given a name  before birth and in the entry in birth register only sex, viz.,  male or  female would be mentioned. After naming ceremony, the  name  is  given.  It  is,  therefore,  highly doubtful if the parents of the respondent who were villagers and illiterate  had named  the appellant either before or on the day of his birth. The explanation given now on behalf of the  respondent  that  his  elder  brother,  who  was  named Bhagwan, was  born on 12.11.1949 and died on 26.11.1949 and, therefore, his  birth date  cannot be 12.11.1948 is also not convincing.  His  further  explanation  that  as  his  elder brother died, his parents thought of calling him by the same name is  also not  believable. Moreover, if that was so, his parents would  not have  committed a  mistake in  giving his birth date  to the  School authorities even though they were illiterate. It  appears that  he got  the entry in the birth register corrected,  then obtained a copy of it and produced the same  before the  authority. Once  it was  found  to  be doubtful, the  authorities were  right in not correcting his birth date  in the  service  book.  Admittedly,  the  School Leaving Certificate  was produced  by the respondent and the entry in the service book was made on the basis of the birth date mentioned  therein. As  he filled to show that the said entry was made due to want of care on the part of some other person or  that  it  was  an  obvious  clerical  error,  the Tribunal ought not to have directed the appellant to correct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the same.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. OA stands dismissed. But, in the circumstances, without costs.