http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI RAMANATH PATNAIK

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:       Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy       Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa P.N. Mishra, Adv. for the appellants N.R. Choudhary,Adv. for the Respondent      The following order of theCourt was delivered:  O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises fromthe judgment of thelearnedsingleJudge of the Orissa High Court,made on February 21,1986 inSecond Appeal No. 767/81, dismissing the second appeal in limine.      Admittedly, the  respondent joinedthe State service as a  Clerk   on  21.3.1944.  According  to  the  Matriculation Certificate produced  at the  time of  the  entry  into the service, his  date of birth is January 1, 1921.On attaining the superannuation,  heretired from service on 31.12.1978. He filed  a suit  in the  year 1981  on the  basis  of the rejection of  his representation  of  declaration  that his correctdate  of birth is January 1, 1925 and not January 1, 1921. The trialCourt dismissedthe suit, but on appeal, the Additional District Judge, Bhubaneshwardecreedthe suit. As stated earlier, the second appeal was dismissed by theHigh Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      The controversy  is no  longer res integra. This Court has considered the entire case law on this point in State of Tamil Nadu vs. T.V. Venugopalan[(1994)6 SCC 302]. Therein, this Court has held thus :      "It is  well knownthat the service      record would  be opened  after  the      government  servant   enters   the      service record    would     be      countersigned  by the  government      servant.  The   date  of  birth  as      entered inthe school record is the      source of materialfor making entry      inthe service record."      When entry was made  in the service record and when he was inservice, he  did not  make anyattemptto  have the servicerecordcorrected. Therefore, any amount of evidence produced subsequently  would beof no avail. The High Court,

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

therefore, hascommitted manifest  error of law in refusing to entertain the secondappeal.      The appeal is accordinglyallowed. The judgment of the High Court  stand set  aside. The judgment and decree of the appellate Court standsreversed and that of the trial Court stands confirmed. No costs.