Allahabad High Court

LAL CHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: DINESH PATHAK

Holding

The Court disposed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Municipal Commissioner with a representation, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

Summary

Petitioner Lal Chandra challenged the alteration of his date of birth in his service record from 01‑09‑1967 to 01‑04‑1964, alleging violation of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 and Fundamental Rule 56, and that he was denied a hearing. The respondents argued that the original birth date would have made him only 14 at the time of his 1981 appointment, which is impermissible, and relied on a medical certificate to justify the change. The Court examined the submissions and the record but chose not to opine on the merits. Instead, it directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Municipal Commissioner within three weeks, attaching the order and a self‑attested copy of the petition. The Commissioner was instructed to decide the representation within three months, in line with a prior judgment. The writ petition was consequently disposed.

Issues considered

Whether alteration of a government employee's date of birth in the service record without a hearing violates Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 and Note 6 of Fundamental Rule 56.
Whether the petitioner was under‑age at the time of his appointment, thereby justifying the alteration of his date of birth.
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed and the petitioner directed to seek relief through an administrative representation.

Legislation cited

Fundamental Rule 56 — s. Note 6
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 — s. Rule 2

Subjects

date of birth alteration
service record
administrative hearing
Uttar Pradesh recruitment rules
fundamental rule 56
writ petition
administrative remedy

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 13944 of 2026

Lal Chandra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neeraj Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vijay Bahadur Maurya

Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the alteration dated 31.03.2010 recorded in
his service record, pursuant to the recommendation of the committee dated
06.01.2010, whereby his date of birth has been altered from 01.09.1967 to
01.04.1964.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such alteration is stated to
be in violation of Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services
(Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, read with Note 6 of
Fundamental Rule 56. He has further emphasised that the aforesaid
alteration has been made without affording any opportunity of hearing to the
present petitioner. It is further submitted that the case of similarly situated
employees has been allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 09.04.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 13535 of 2020 (Ram Naresh and 5
Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) (Annexure No.4).

3. Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3,
has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner and contended that, if the date of birth of the petitioner ,i.e.,
01.09.1967 is treated as correct, then on the date of his appointment, i.e. in
the year 1981, he would have been only 14 years of age, which is not
permissible in the eyes of law. Accordingly, having regard to the medical
certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, the alteration has been made
in the service record of the petitioner relating to his date of birth.

4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present writ
WRIA No. 13944 of 2026
2

petition pending.

5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with
the direction that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate
representation ventilating his grievance, as raised in the instant writ petition,
before the Municipal Commissioner (respondent No. 2) within a period of
three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self-
attested copy of the writ petition. Upon receipt of the said representation, the
respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law,
in the light of the judgment and order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court
in Writ-A No. 13535 of 2020 (Ram Naresh and 5 Others Vs. State of U.P.
and 2 Others), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the
representation.

6. With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition
stands disposed of.

September 8, 2026
vkg
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…