NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5999 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.5439/2010]

Manoj Kumar … Appellant

Vs.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted. Heard the counsel.

2. The appellant claims that his date of birth is 8.9.1988. He passed the  

matriculation  examination  in  the  year  2004.  The  matriculation  certificate  

dated 12.5.2004 issued by the Haryana Board of School Education showed  

his date of birth as 8.11.1989 thereby making him one year and two months  

younger.  According  to  appellant,  the  date  of  birth  entered  in  the  

matriculation certification was erroneous and therefore he approached the  

school authorities for correction of his date of birth. When his request was  

1

pending, vacancies in respect of the post of Constables (Executive) in Delhi  

Police were advertised in May, 2007.  The appellant applied for the said post  

mentioning  the  correct  date  of  birth,  that  is,  8.9.1988  in  the  application  

hoping  that  by  the  time  he  was  appointed,  the  date  of  birth  in  the  

matriculation  certificate  could  be  got  amended.  In  pursuance  of  his  

application,  he  was  selected  and  appointed  on  21.5.2008  and  sent  for  

training.

3. In  the  meanwhile  on  17.12.2007,  the  appellant  also  made  an  

application to the Haryana Board of School Education for correction of his  

date of birth. In the said application, he gave the particulars of the schools  

where he studied and the date of  birth entered in the school records.  He  

stated that when he was admitted to MAGSS School in 1999 for 6th standard,  

his date of birth was rightly shown as 8.9.1988, but when he was shifted to  

another school, the date of birth was wrongly entered as 8.11.1989 which  

was  reflected  in  the  matriculation  certificate.  He  relied  upon  the  School  

Leaving  Certificate  dated  30.4.2000,  issued  by  MAGSS  School,  Jind,  

wherein his date of birth was shown as 8.9.1988. As there was no response  

from the Board, he filed a suit on 26.5.2008 for correcting his date of birth.

2

4. The third respondent issued a notice dated 20.8.2008 to the appellant  

calling upon him to show cause why his services should not be terminated  

under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 for showing  

his date of birth wrongly as 8.9.1988, instead of 8.11.1989, in his application  

for employment. The appellant submitted a reply dated 9.9.2008 stating that  

his  correct  date  of  birth  was  8.9.1988;  that  the  matriculation  certificate  

contained a wrong date; and that he had already approached the authorities  

for correction and that he had also filed a suit in that behalf. However the  

third  respondent  did  not  accept  the  explanation  and  terminated  the  

appellant’s services by order dated 5.12.2008.  

5. On  2.1.2009,  the  Civil  Judge,  Jind,  decreed  the  appellant’s  suit  

directing the Board of School Education, Haryana to correct the date of birth  

of appellant as 8.9.1988 in the matriculation certificate. In pursuance of it,  

the  Board  of  School  Education  had  issued  a  corrected  matriculation  

certificate dated 13.1.2009 showing his date of birth as 8.9.1988.

6. The representations dated 7.1.2009 and 21.1.2009 submitted by the  

appellant  against  the  termination  order  were  rejected  by  the  fourth  

respondent, by order dated 19.3.2009. Aggrieved  thereby,  the  appellant  

approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the termination.  

3

The Tribunal dismissed his application on 14.5.2009. The review application  

filed by him was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 8.7.2009. The appellant  

filed a  writ  petition challenging the  orders  of  the  Tribunal  and the  High  

Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated 20.10.2009. The said order  

is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

7. The High Court was of the view that if appellant’s date of birth was  

8.11.1989 as per matriculation certificate, he would have been under-aged  

when he applied for appointment and apparently to overcome the minimum  

age requirement, he had wrongly given his date of birth as 8.9.1988; and that  

after securing employment, he took steps to have the date of birth changed;  

that if he had disclosed the true date of birth shown in the matriculation  

certificate, he would not have been eligible for employment; and that in the  

circumstances  the  appellant  should  be  treated  as  having  furnished  false  

information.

8. There is no doubt that if any candidate furnishes false or incomplete  

information  or  withholds  or  conceals  any  material  information  in  his  

application, he will be debarred from securing employment. It is also true  

that even if such an applicant is already appointed, his services are liable to  

be terminated for furnishing false information.

4

9. But  the  question  here  is  whether  the  appellant  had  given  false  

information or suppressed any relevant or material information. The records  

of MAGSS School,  Jind,  Haryana where he studied in the sixth standard  

shows his date of birth as 8.9.1988. Therefore that date was not something  

that  was  created  for  the  purpose  of  securing  employment.  Further,  the  

matriculation certificate issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana,  

to  appellant’s  sister  shows  her  date  of  birth  as  23.11.1989.  Obviously  

therefore  the  appellant’s  date  of  birth  shown  as  8.11.1989  in  his  

matriculation  certificate,  was erroneous.  He was pursuing his  request  for  

correction of the date of birth in the matriculation certificate and also filed a  

suit for correction of his date of birth. The Civil Court decreed the suit and  

the Board of School Education accepted the decision and corrected the date  

of birth. If all the facts and circumstances are taken note of, it is evident that  

appellant’s date of birth was 8.9.1988 and not 8.11.1989.  The appellant was  

all along making efforts to get the date of birth corrected and in fact, got it  

corrected. This is not a case where a wrong date was given to have a longer  

period of service and thereafter an attempt to justify it. There was obviously  

a  mistake  in  the  date  of  birth  and the  Haryana  School  Education  Board  

corrected  it.  The  explanation  offered  by  the  appellant  with  supporting  

5

documents,  was not  considered either  by respondents  3 and 4,  or  by the  

Tribunal and the High Court. They ignored the relevant material and decided  

against the appellant only because the matriculation certificate as it stood at  

the time of the employment application was different from the date given in  

the  application  for  employment.  While  the  matriculation  certificate  is  a  

strong  material,  other  equally  relevant  material  cannot  be  ignored,  

particularly when the matriculate certificate has been corrected. The case of  

an entrant seeking correction of date of birth should not be equated with  

cases of government servants at the tail  end of their service trying to get  

extension of service by alleging wrong date of birth. We should also not lose  

sight of the fact that many service Rules provide for change of date of birth  

in the Service Register, on production of satisfactory proof, provided that the  

change is sought within the first few years of entering service. Be that as it  

may.  

10. We are therefore of the view that the termination cannot be sustained.  

The appeal is therefore allowed, the order of the High Court, the orders of  

the CAT and the order of termination are set aside. As a consequence the  

appellant shall be taken back into service within two months, with continuity  

6

of service and permitted to complete his training.  The appellant will not be  

entitled to any backwages.

…………………………J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; …………………………J. July 26, 2010. (Gyan Sudha Misra)   

7