THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRASversusM. MANICKAM AND ORS.

                         [2011) 10 S.C.R. 324


A   THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
                                    v.
                      M. MANICKAM AND ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal Nos.7030-31 of 2011)
                           AUGUST 17, 2011
B
                [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ANO
                       ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

         TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES:
c
          Rules 30 (b) and (c)'- Date of birth - Change in -
    Limitation - Held: The application filed by the District Munsif .
    for change of his date of birth was filed beyond the period of
    limitation - Besides, the application was not addressed to the
D   State Government but it was addressed to the Registrar of the
    High Court - Therefore, the Officer did not follow the mandate
    and requisites of r. 30 and, as such, in terms of sub-r. (c), the
    application was to be summarily rejected - The evidence
    adduced by the Officer in suppon of his claim is most
E   unreliable - Further, the Officer has failed to discharge his
    onus of proving the authenticity of the horoscope on which
    reliance is placed-The Officer has failed to prove that any
    change of his date of birth is called for....: Constitution of India,
    1950 - Article 136 - Service Law - Date of birth.

F        CONSTITUTION OF IND/A:

      Article 136 - Appeal by special leave - Appreciation of
  evidence - Suit filed for declaration and mandatory injunction
  to correct plaintiff's date of birth recorded in the S.S.L.C,
G Certificate and the service record - Ultimately, decreed by
  High Court - Held: Change of date of birth is a very important
  responsibility to be discharged - There must be strong,
  cogent and reliable evidence in support of the claim that the
  date of birth entered in the service records or S.S. L. C.
H                                  324
  REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 325
               v. M. MANICKAM
 certificate was wrongly entered by mistake - The evidence              A
 adduced by the officer in support of his case is most unreliable
 - Since the horoscope is the primary document on which
 reliance is placed, there cannot be any bar to examine the
 authenticity and evidentiary value of the same while
 exercising the power under Article 136 as it permits such a            B
 scrutiny particularly when it relates to the change of date of
 birth of a person who seeks to get an advantage to his benefit
 to which he otherwise may not be entitled - On a close
 examination of the horoscope and the related documents, it
 is evident that the plaintiff has failed to discharge his onus in      c
 proving the authenticity of the horoscope - The judgment and
 the decree passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and
 are set aside - The suit stands dismissed - Service Law -
 Evidence.

      EVIDENCE:                                                         D

       Date of birth - Proving of -Medical certificate - Held: The
  medical certificate produced in· the instant case is described
  as "Age Proof Certificate" - It is very vague and unreliable -
  Whether or not any radiological examination or any                    E
  ossification test was conducted is not reflected in the certificate
  - It only states that on the basis of physical examination and
. from appearance of the Officer and on the basis of his own
  statement the age was determined - The doctor who was
  examined to prove the certificate also did not produce any test       F
  report or copy thereof - Thus, reliance cannot be placed on
  the authenticity and validity of the said age proof certificate -
  Service Law.

      Respondent No.1 joined as District Munsif-cum-
 Judicial Magistrate on 4.11.1988 in the State of Tamil                 G
 Nadu. On 11.11.1993 he submitted an application to the
 Registrar, High Court of Madras seeking to change his
 date of birth from 19.3.1947 to 24.11.1950. Subsequently,
 he filed a suit bearing O.S. No.549 of 1995 in the Court of
                                                                        H
    326     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A the District Munsif for a declaration that his date of birth
    was 24.11.1950, and for a mandatory injunction to enter
    his date of birth in the S.S.L.C. book and in the service
    records as 24.11.1950 instead of 19.3.1947. The suit was
   'decreed with a mandatory injunction to make the change
B of date of birth in S.S.L.C. book. The appeal filed by
    respondent nos.2 to 4 was allowed by the Sub-Judge.
    However, the second appeal filed by respondent no.1
    was allowed by the High Court. The review petition filed
    by the Registrar General, High Court of Madras having
k; been dismissed, he filed the appeals.
          Allowing the appeals, the Court

        HELD: 1.1 Sub rule (b) of r.30 of the Tamil Nadu State
   Judicial Service Rules provides that after the person has
 P entered the service by direct recruitment, an application
 I to correct his date of birth as entered in the official
   records should normally be entertained only if such
   application is made within five years of such entry into
   the service and that such application shall be made to the
;E government through the High Court and should be
   disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down
   in sub-rule (a). Sub-rule (c) of Rule 30 on the other hand,
   provides that any application received after five years of
   entry into service should be summarily rejected. It is true
 F that the word "normally" is used in sub-rule (b). However,
   sub-rule (c) which immediately follows makes it
   mandatory that an application which is received after five
   years of entry into the service should be summarily
   rejected. Therefore, the pre-requisite of filing such an
 G application is that it must be submitted within five years
   period and when it is so submitted the same should be
   entertained. [Paras 13 and 14] [335-D-H; 336-A]
       1.2 In the instant case, the formal application was
    admittedly filed after expiry of the period of five years.
H
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 327
             v. M. MANICKAM
Sub-r.(a) of r. 30 clearly emphasizes that the application       A
seeking for change of date of birth is to be made to the
~overnment through the High Court. The letter on which
reliance is placed by respondent No. 1 which is dated
11.11.1993 is not addressed to the government but it is
addressed to the Registrar of the High Court and in that         B
application respondent No. 1 has formally sought for
change of his date of birth stating the reason as to why
such change in the date of birth is called for. Thus, strictly
speaking the respondent while filing the said application
did not follow the mandate and requisites of Rule 30 of          c
the Rules. Therefore, in terms of sub-r.(c) it was to be
summarily rejected. [Paras 15 and 17] [336-B-C; ·339-E-G]
    Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Vs. Megh
Raj Garg and Another 2010 (7 ) SCR 172 = (2010) 6 SCC
482; Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh 1993 ( 1 ) SCR 862 =        D
(1993) 2 sec 162 - relied on.
     2.1 PW-2, the doctor who has proved the medical
certificate, stated that he was the Chairman of the
Medical Board and that the medical certificate (Ext.A-12) E
was given to respondent No. 1 by the Medical Board. He
has specifically stated in his deposition that he has not
produced the test report or its copy before the Court
showing supporting documents and the tests based on
which they had determined the age of respondent No. 1/
plaintiff. It must be indicated at this stage that respondent F
No. 1/plaintiff himself went to the Medical Board and got
himself examined and obtained the report which was
brought in evidence. At the top of the medical certificate,
it is written as "Age Proof Certificate." The said medical
certificate is very vague and unreliable. Whether or not G
any radiological examination was done and if so, of what
nature, and also whether any ossification test was done
or not is not reflected from the said report. It is only stated
in the certificate that on the basis of physical examination
and from_hi$ appearance and on the basis of his own• H
    328   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A statement the age of respondent no. 1 was determined
  as 48 years. [Paras 20-22) (341-B-C-E-F; 342-B-D]
        Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj Nath v. State of Assam
                      =
    2001 (3) SCR 669 (2001) 5 SCC 714 - referred to.
B      2.2 The age proof certificate appears to have been
  got prepared for the purpose of adducing evidence at the
  time of hearing of the suit and not before. The document
  is also found to be unrealisti-c and unreliable.
  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it
C is very difficult to place any reliance on the authenticity
  and validity of the said age proof certificate. [Para 24)
  [342-G-H; 343-A]

        2.3 Respondent No. 1 also relied upon the evidence
0 of  two  persons in support of his contention that he was
  born in the year 1950. PW-3, who is the elder brother of
  respondent No. 1 stated that respondent No. 1 was born
  in the year 1950. He stated that generally when a child is
  born, the same is registered with the Village Munsif and
E that he did not know whether his father had informed the
  village Munsif about the birth of respondent No. 1. He
  stated that while his brother was at the age of about three
  or four years, to get him admitted in the school, his father
  had given innocently his age as about 7 or 8 years and
  got respondent No. 1 admitted in the school. The only
F other witness who was examined to prove the age of
  respondent No. 1 was PW-4 who stated that respondent
  No. 1 was born in the year 1950 and that he also got
  married in the year 1950. However, in the cross-
  examination, he could not say as to what is the date and
G month in which respondent No. 1 was born. He also
  could not give the date and month of his marriage as well.
  [Paras 24-27) (343-A-B-D-F]                                .
     2.4 The evidence adduced by respondent No. 1 in
H support of his case is most unreliable. Change of date of
 REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 329
              v. M. MANICKAM
 birth is a very important responsibility to be discharged.    A
 There must be strong, cogent and reliable evidence in
 support of the contention that the date of birth entered
 in the service records or in the S.S.L.C. certificate was
 wrongly entered by a mistake. The difference of age in
 the instant case is also considerable, as it is 3 years, 8    B
 months and 5 days. [Paras 28-29 and 34] [343-G; 344-G;             I
                                                                    I
 347-A-H]
     State of U.P. v. Shiv Narayan Upadhyaya 2005 (1)
  Suppl. SCR 847    =(2005) 6 sec 49 - relied on.
                                                               c
        2.5 The horoscope relied upon by respondent No. 1
   is the basis and foundation of his claim. As has been held ·
   by this Court, a horoscope is a very weak piece of
  material to prove age of a person and that heavy onus
   lies on a person who wants to press it into service· to o
   prove its authenticity. The creator of the noroscope or
  the writer is not examined in the case~as he was stated
  to be dead. None of his family rriefmbers or any of his
   acquaintances was examined .to prove the handwriting.
  This court itself closely and very minutely considered the E
   horoscope. There cannot be any bar to examine the
 . authenticity and evidentiary value of the same while
· exercising the power under Article 136 of the Constitution
   of India. Article 136 permits such a scrutiny particularly
   when it relate!!> to the change of date of birth of a person
                                                                F
   who seeks to get an advantage to his benefit to which
   he otherwise may not be entitled to. There is a notebook
   containing the horoscopes of all the sons and daughters
   of the father C?f respondent No. 1 stated to have been
   made at different points of time. The book allegedly
   containing horoscopes of all persons was shown to have G
   been maintained from 1939 to 1953. But a bare perusal
   of the document would indicate that for all the
   horoscopes written between a period of 14 years the
   same ink was used by the same writer. It could be
   deduced from the materials on record that somewhere H
    330    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A   around 1993 this document was got prepared. If such a
    notebook was available, nothing is stated as to why the
    same could not have been looked at and produced at the
    time of admission of respondent no.1 in the school or at
    the time of admission in the college or even at the time
B   when he was entering into the service. [paras 31- 33 and
    34] [345-C-H; 347-C-E; 346-D-E]
         State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh 2005 (2 ) SCR 758
     = (2005) 3 SCC 702 and Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai and
    Others 2003 (4 ) Suppl. SCR 17 = (2003) 12 sec 395 -
C   relied on.
         2.6 From the signature appearing on the school
    teaving certificate, it is evident that the father of
    respondent No. 1 was a man of letters and there was no
0   reason as to why he would subscribe to a wrong age as
    alleged and that too in his S.S.L.C. Certificate. The
    S.S.L.C. Certificate showi,..g the date of birth of
    respondent no. 1 as 19.3.1947 was produced by him at
    the time of his entry into the college as also his entry into
E   the service knowing fully well that, that particular age is
    factually recorded. [Para 32-33] [346-E-G]
       3. This court is of a firm opinion that respondent No ..
  1 has failed to discharge his onus in proving the
  authenticity of the horoscope on .which reliance is
F placed. The judgment and the decree passed by the
  Munsif Court which is affirmed by the High Court cannot
  be sustained. The judgment and decree of the High Court
  are set aside and it is held that respondent No. 1 has failed
  to prove that any change of date of birth is called for in
G the case. The suit stands dismissed. [Para 34-35] [347-B-
  C; 348-B]
                         Case Law Reference:
          2010 (7) SCR 172              relied on     Para 15
H         1993 (1) SCR 862              relied on      Para 16
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 331
             v. M. MANICKAM
    2001 (3) SCR 669                  referred to      Para 23       A
    2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 847           referred to      Para 28
    2005 (2) SCR 758                  relied on        Para 30
    2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 17            relied on        Para 34
                                                                     B
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7030-7031 of 2011.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 15.03.2007 and dated
21.07.2007 of the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in             c
Review Petition No. 19 of 2007 in Second Appeal No. 1064
of 2005.

    Dr. Rajeev B. Majodkar, Anil K. Jha for the Appellant.

    K.V. Vishwanathan, V. Mohana,                 Abhishek K.,       D
Subramonium Prasad for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

   . DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Delay condoned ..
                                                                     E
    2. Leave granted.

     3. The present appeals are filed against the judgments
and orders dated 15.03.2007 and 21.07.2007 in Second
Appeal No. 1064 of2005, and Review Petition No. 19 of2007,           F
respectively, passed by the Madras High Court whereby it
dismissed the second appeal and the review petition filed by
the appellant herein accepting the contentions raised by the
Respondent No. 1. By its judgments and orders
aforementioned, the High Court set aside the judgment and            G
decree of Subordinate Court and restored the judgment and
decree of District Munsif Court dated 09.10.2002.

     4. The facts leading to the filing of the present app~als are
that the Respondent No. 1- M. Manickam joined the State
Subordinate Judicial Service as District Munsif-cum-Judicial         H
    332    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A Magistrate on 04.11.1988, after getting duly selected for the .
  said post by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. It is
  alleged by the Respondent No. 1 that in his service records,
  his date of birth has been entered as 19.03.1947, as found in
  the S.S.L.C. Book, whereas his actual date of birth is
B 24.11.1950 and that due to the wrong entry of his date of birth
  in the service records, he would retire from his service 3 years,
  8 months and 5 days before his actual date of superannuation.

       5. He submitted a letter dated 07.10.1993 to the Chief
C Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari requesting him for
  permission to peruse his service register in which he submitted
  that his date of birth has wrongly been submitted. He also
  requested him for supplying of requisite proforma for changing
  his date of birth. Thereafter Respondent No. 1 submitted an
  application dated 11.11.1993 to Registrar, High Court of
D Madras seeking change of his date of birth. In response to his
  application, the Administrative Offi.;er of the High Court asked
  for certain particulars and documents in response to which
  Respondent No. 1 submitted his reply vide letter dated
  27.01.1994.
E
       6. Subsequent thereto Respondent No. 1 filed a Suit
  before the District Munsif Court, Karur, which was registered
  as O.S. No. 549/1995, for a declaration that his date of birth is
  24.11.1950 and for a mandatory injunction to enter his date of
F birth in his S.S.L.C. book and in the Service Records as
  24.11.1950, instead of 19.03.1947. The Munsif Court vide
  order dated 09.10.2002 decreed the suit in favour of
  Respondent No. 1 and against Respondent Nos. 2-4. The
  Munsif Court granted mandatory injunction against Respondent
G Nos. 2-4 to make the change of date of birth in their S.S.L.C.
  book. However, mandatory injunction against the present
  appellant to alter the date of birth in the service register was
  not granted.

     7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Munsif Court,
H Respondent Nos. 2-4 filed an appeal before the Sub-Judge,
  REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 333
  v. M. MANICKAM [OR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
 Karur which was allowed by the Sub-Judge by its judgment and A
 order dated 12.10.2004. Against the said order of the Sub-
 Judge, Respondent No. 1 preferred Second Appeal before the
 High Court of Madras which was registered as S.A. No. 1064
 of 2005. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated
 15.03.2007 allowed the second appeal of the Respondent No. B
 1 and restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
 Review Petition filed by the appellant herein before the High
 Court also got dismissed vidf:! order dated 21.07.2007. Against
 these orders of the High Court, viz., 15.03.2007 and 21.07.2007
 the appellant has filed the present appeals, on which we heard c
 learned counsel appearing for the parties.

       8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
  that the application filed by the respondent seeking for change
  of his date of birth was filed after the period of limitation
  contemplated under the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules
                                                                      0
  (hereinafter referred to as "Rules") which is five years and
  therefore the decree and the judgment passed by the High
  Court affirming the decree of the Munsifis illegal and erroneous.
  In support of the said contention, the counsel relied upon the
  contents of the letter dated 7.10.1993 which was submitted by . E
  respondent No. 1 in which for the first time, tie requested for
  perusal of his service register contending inter alia that his date
  of birth appears to be wrongly recorded for which he
  contemplated making of an application at a later point of time.
  It was submitted that in the said letter, the respondent No. 1 F
  never made a request for said change of date of birth.
· According to him, the formal application was filed by respondent
  No. 1 only on 11.11.1993 to the Madras High Court requesting
  for passing suitable orders directing concerned authorities to
  change his date of birth as 24.11.1950 instead of 19.3.1947. G

      9. He further submitted that since representation for change
 of his date of birth was submitted after five years, therefore, the
 same was required to be rejected summarily in terms of the
 Rules. So far as the medical report to which reference was made H
    334    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A   by the courts below, it was submitted that the aforesaid medical
    report was not supported by any test report and proof of having
    made any ossification test or any supporting document like test
    reports or X-Rc;iy reports and therefore the said medical repqrt
    relied upon by respondent No. 1 and done at his instance is of
B   no evidentiary value and is of no assistance.

         10. He also submitted that reliance on the horoscope itself
    for change of birth is unfounded as the said horoscope is not
    only a very weak piece of evidence but the horoscope on which
c   reliance is placed by respondent No. 1 is doubtful and appears
    to have been created for the purpose of fortifying the claim for
    change of date of birth.

          11. He had also drawn our attention to the copy of the
    S.S.L.C. certificate. By way of reference to the said S.S.L.C.
D   certificate, it was submitted that originally the date of birth of
    respondent No. 1 was recorded as 19.3.1947 which appears
    to have been subsequently changed in a different handwriting,
    changing it to 24.11.1950 without indicating as to who had
    changed the same. There is neither the identification of the
E   person who corrected the same nor any seal of the concerned
    authority permitting and making such necessary changes.

          12. The aforesaid contentions of the counsel appearing for
    the appellant were refuted by the counsel appearing for the
F respondent No. 1 who submitted that in the present case, the
    respondent No. 1 has submitted not only documentary evidence
    in support of his claim but such a claim for change of his date
    of birth was also supported by medical evidence as also oral
    evidence. ·He also submitted that inadmissibility of the
G horoscope was not a question raised in the special leave
    petition and therefore, the same cannot be gone into and
    cannot be made a case to exercise jurisdiction under Article
    136 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the aforesaid
    change of date of birth in the S.S.L.C. certificate was made
  . pursuant to an order made by the competent authority and
H
 REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 335
 v. M. MANICKAM [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
therefore, there is nothing wrong in relying on the same by the     A
High Court as also by the Munsif Court who held in favour of
respondent No. 1.

      13. We have perused the records very carefully in the light
of the aforesaid submissions. Rule 30 of the then Rules which
                                                                    8
is the relevant service Rule for deciding the case provides for
the procedure for alteration of date of birth. Sub-Rule (a) of Rule
30 provides that if at the time of his appointment in service by
direct recruitment, a candidate claims that his date of birth is
different from that entered in the S.S.L.C. books or Matriculation
Register or School Records, he should make an application C
through the High Court stating the evidence on which he relies
and stating that how the mistake had occurred. The said
application when received should be forwarded to the Board
of Revenue for report after investigation by an officer not below
the rank of Deputy Collector and on receipt of the report, the D
Government should decide as to whether such alteration of date
of birth should be permitted or the application should be
rejected. Sub Rule (b) of Rule 30 provides that after the person
has entered the service by direct recruitment, an application to
correct his date of birth as entered in the official records should E
normally be entertained only if such application is made within
five years of such entry into the service and that such application
shall be made to the government through the High Court and
should be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid
down in sub-Rule (a). Sub-Rule (c) of ~ule 30 on the other hand, F
provides that any application received after five years of entry
into service should be summarily rejected.

      14. Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 put his
emphasis1 on the word "normally" in sub-rule (b). This sub-rule G
(b) is indisputably applicable to the respondent. However, sub-
rule (c) which immediately follows makes it mandatory that an
application which is received after five years of entry into the
service should be summarily rejected. Therefore, the pre-
requisite of filing such an application is that it must be submitted H
    336     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011] 10 S.C.R.


A   within five years period and when it is so submitted the same
    should be entertained.

         15. In this case, the formal application was admittedly filed
    after expiry of the period of five years. Sub-Rule (a) of Rule 30
B   clearly emphasizes that the application seeking for change of
    date of birth is to be made to the government through the High
    Court. The letter on which reliance is placed by respondent No.
    1 which is dated 11.11.1993 is not addressed to the
    government but it is addressed to the Registrar of the High
C   Court and in that application the respondent No. 1 has formally
    sought for change of his date of birth stating the reason as to
    why such date of birth is called for.

         16. In Punjab & Haryana High Courl at Chandigarh Vs.
    Megh Raf Garg and Another reported in (2010) 6 SCC 482,
D   this Court while dealing with the issue of limitation in the case
    of application for change of date of birth, held as follows:-

          "13. If the correct date of birth of Respondent 1 was 27-3-
          1938 and this was supported by the certificates issued by
          the schools in which he had studied before appearing in
E
          the matriculation examination, then he would have
          immediately after joining the service made an application
          to the University for change of the date of birth recorded
          in the matriculation certificate and persuaded the authority
          concerned to decide the same so as to enable him to
F
          move the State Government and the High Court for making
          corresponding change in the date of birth recorded in his
          service book in terms of Para 1 of Annexure A to Chapter
          II of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I. ....

G         15. The High Court or for that reason the State
          Government did not have the power, jurisdiction or authority
          to entertain the representation made by Respondent 1
          after more than twelve years of his entering into service.
          Therefore, neither of them committed any illegality by
H
Ri=GISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 337
v. M. MANICKAM [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
  refusing to accept the prayer made by Respondent 1 on A
  the basis of change effected by the University in the date .
  of birth recorded in his matriculation certificate.
  Unfortunately, the trial court, the lower appellate court and
  the learned Single Judge of the High Court totally
  misdirected themselves in appreciating the true scope of B
  the embargo contained in the relevant rule against the
  entertaining of an application for correction of the date of
  birth after two years of the government servant's entry into
  service and all of them committed grave error by nullifying
  the decision taken by the State Government in consultation       c
  with the High Court not to accept the representation made
  by Respondent 1 for change of the date of birth recorded
  in his service book.

  17. This Court has time and again cautioned the civil courts
  and the High Courts against entertaining and accepting the       D
  claim made by the employees long after entering into
  service for correction of the recorded date of birth. In Union
  of India v. Harnam Singh this Court considered the
  question whether the employer was justified in declining
  the respondent's request for correction of the date of birth     E
  made after thirty-five years of his induction into the service
  and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was
  justified in allowing the original application filed by him.
  While reversing the order of the Tribunal, this Court
  observed: (SCC pp. 167-68, para 7)                               F

         7. A government servant, after entry into service,
         acquires the right to continue in service till the age
         of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of
         its powers regulating conditions of service, unless G
         the services are dispensed with on other grounds
         contained in the relevant service rules after
         following the procedure prescribed therein. The
         date of birth entered in the service records of a
         civil servant is, .thus of utmost importance for the H
    338   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A            reason that the right to continue in service stands
             decided by its entry in the service record. A
             government servant who has declared his age at
             the initial stage of the employment is, of course,
             not precluded from making a request later on for
B            correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to
             claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in
             possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date
             of birth as different from the one earlier recorded
             and even if there is no period of limitation
c            prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth,
             the government servant must do so without any
             unreasonable delay. In the absence of any
             provision in the rules for correction of date of birth,
             the general principle of refusing relief on grounds
             of laches or stale claims, is generally applied by the
D
             courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for
             the Government to fix a time-limit, in the service
             rules, after which no application for correction of
             date of birth of a goverrment servant can be
             entertained. A government servant who makes an
E
             application for correction of date of birth beyond
             the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a
             matter of right, the correction of his date of birth
             even if he has good evidence to establish that the
             recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law
F            of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be
             applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals
             cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over
             their rights and allow the period of limitation to
             expire. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded
G            would determine his date of superannuation even
             if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in
             service on the basis of his actual age."

                                             (emphasis supplied}
H
 REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 339
 v. M. MANICKAM [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
Again in Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh reported in (1993)                   A
2 SCC 162, this Court said about limitation in paragraph 7 in
the following manner:-

     "7 ........................................... ft is nonetheless
     competent for the Government to fix a time-limit, in the 8
     service rules, after which no application for correction of
     date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained.
     A Government servant who makes an application for
     correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed,
     therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction C
     of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to
     establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly
     erroneous. The law of limitation may operate harshly but it
     has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or
     tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over
     their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. D
     Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would
     determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts
     to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis
     of his actual age .................................................... ."
                                                                               E
     17. Therefore, strictly speaking the Respondent while fifing
the said application did not follow the mandate and requisites
of Rufe 30 of the Rules. The application was not addressed to
the State Government nor the procedure prescribed in sub-Rufe
(a), which is applicable even for a case where sub-Rufe (b) F
applies was not adhered to nor the said application was fifed
within five years. Therefore, in terms of sub-rule (c) it was to
be summarily rejected. But, instead of deciding the present
appeal only on the aforesaid ground, we proceed to decide on
the other issues also which were urged before us and which in G
our considered opinion cal~ for our decision.

     18. So far as the contention with regard to change made
in the S.S.L.C. Certificate is concerned, we have perused the
said certificate. In the said certificate, it was clearly mentioned
                                                                              H
    340     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A   that his date of birth was 19.3.1947 which was entered into by
    the headmaster of the concerned school It also contained the
    declaration of the father of respondent No. 1. The signature of
    the father of the respondent No. 1 is clearly visible on the
    declaration and the signature is distinct, bold and beautifully
B   written and therefore appears to be that of a man of letters. The
    date recorded therein came to be changed to 24.11.1950 by
    someone by putting his initials, but the same is also without any
    date and no seal also appears to have been appended thereto
    in support of such change.
c          19. Sub-Section(1) of Section 13 of the Registration of
     Births and Deaths Act, 1969 provides that any birth or death
     of which information is given to the Registrar after expiry of the
     period specified therein, but within thirty days of its occurrence,
    .shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be
D    prescribed. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that any birth or
     death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar
     after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be
     registered only with the written permission of the prescribed
     authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the
E    production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any
     other officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government.
     Sub-section (3) of Section 30 which is relevant for our purpose
     also provides that any birth or death which has not been
     registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered
F    only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a
     Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth
     or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. There is nothing
     in the evidence to indicate that the pre-conditions and the
     requisites of sub-section (3) of Section 30 were followed in the
G    instant case by respondent No. 1. No order of the Magistrate
     of the first class or Presidency Magistrate is placed on record
     to prove and establish that such an order was passed after
     verifying the correctness of the birth nor any other connected
     document thereof is placed on record and therefore, the change
H
  REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 341
  v. M. MANICKAM [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
 apparently was not made in terms of the aforesaid mandate             A
 of Section 13 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

       20. Reliance is placed by respondent No. 1 on the
 evidence of the doctor and the medical certificate. PW-2 is Shri
 Newmen who has proved the medical certificate stating that he
                                                                       8
 was the Chairman of the Medical Board and that the medical
 certificate was given to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 by the
 Medical Board which is Ext. A-12. He stated in his examination-
 in-chief that he was the Chief of the Board formed for issuance
 of Ex. A-12, which is relied upon by plaintiff/respondent No. 1       C
 and one doctor in Pathology, one General Medical Expert and
 one Radiologist were in that team. He has also stated that the
 said medical team generally examined plaintiff/respondent No.
 1 and examined him radiologically and came to the condusion
 as per Ex. A~12. He also stated that what kind of examination
 was conducted on plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is noted in the           D
 report of the Medical Board.

       21. He has specifically stated in his deposition that he has
  not produced the test report or its copy before the Court
  showing supporting documents and the tests based on which            E
  they had determined the age of respondent No. 1/plaintiff. It
  must be indicated at this stage that respondent No. 1/pfaintiff
  himself went to the Medical Board and got himself examined
  and obtained the aforesaid report which was brought in
  evidence. At the top of the aforesaid medical certificate, it is     F
  written as "Age Proof Certificate". The said age proof certificate
  is signed by the Chairman and also signed by two other
I members. What is recorded in the said age proof certificate
  is extracted below:-

      "This is to certify that MEDICAL BOARD No. Office at             G
      TIRUPUR have carefully examined THIRU MANICKAM, S/
      o Thiru V. Muthusamy, Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet an
      applicant for Age Certificate. His identification marks are;

                                                                       H
    342        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A         1.     A Black mole on the right colla~ bone.

          2.     A Black mole on the right hand.

          According to my physical examination and personal of his
        . appearance of the individual, he appears to be about 48
B         years (Forty Eight years ) according to his own statement"

         22. In our considered opinion, the said medical certificate
    is very vague and unreliable. Whether or not any radiological
    examination was done and if so, of what nature, and also
c   whether any ossification test was done or not is not reflected
    from the said report. It is only stated in the certificate that on
    the basis of physical examination and from his appearance and
    on the basis of his own statement the age of the respondent
    was determined as 48 years.
D        23. This Court in the case of Ramdeo Chauhan alias Raj
    Nath v. State of Assam reported in (2001) 5 SCC 714 while
    dealing with the reliability of the ossification test held as follows:


E         "21 ............................ An X-ray ossification test may
          provide a surer basis for determining the age of an
          individual than the opinion of a medical expert but it can
          by no means be so infallible and accurate a test as to
          indicate the exact date of birth of the person concerned.
F         Too much of reliance cannot be placed upon textbooks, on
          medical jurisprudence and toxicology while determining
          the age of an accused. In this vast country with varied
          latitudes, heights, environment, vegetation and nutrition, the
          height and weight cannot be expected to be uniform."
G        24. That age proof certificate appears to have been got
    prepared for the purpose of adducing evidence at the time of
    hearing of the suit and not before. The document is also found
    fo unrealistic and unreliable. Considering the facts and
    circumstances of the case, it is very difficult to place any
H
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 343
v. M. MANICKAM [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
reliance on the authenticity and validity of the said age proof       A
certificate. Respondent No. 1 also relied upon the evidence of
two persons in support of his contention that he was born in
the year 1950. Let us now proceed to consider the strength of
such oral evidence.
                                                                      8
     25. PW-3, Murugan who is the elder brother of respondent
No. 1 was examined. He had stated that respondent No. 1/
plaintiff was born in the year 1950. He also stated that in their
family except respondent r:;Jo. 1, nobody studied in school or
college which is found to be incorrect because at a later stage       C
he himself had stated that he had studied upto 2nd or 3rd
standard . .

     26. He also stated that generally when the child is born,
the same is registered with the Village Munsif and that he did
not know whether his father had informed the village Munsif           D
about the birth of respondent No. 1. He had stated that while
his brother was at the age of aoout three or four years, to get
him admitted in the school, his father had given innocently his
age as about 7 or 8 years and got respondent No. 1 admitted
in the school.                                                        E

     27. The only other witness who. was examined to prove the_. ·.., ·
age of respondent No. 1 was Chettiappa Velar, PW-4 who had · ·
stated that respondent No. 1 was born in the year 1950 and
that he also got married in the year 1950. However, in the
cross-examination, he could not say as to what is the date and F
month in which the respondent No. 1 was born. He also could
not give the date and month of his marriage as well.

      28. The aforesaid evidence adduced by respondent No.
1 in support of his case is most unreliable. Change of date of        G
birth is a very important responsibility to be discharged for there
is a general tendency amongst the employees to lower their
age and change their date of birth to suit their career and to
lengthen their service career. In paragraph 6 of the judgment
                                                                      H
    344      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A   of this Court in State of U.P. v. Shiv Narayan Upadhyaya
    reported in (2005) 6 SCC 49, this Court held thus: -

          "6 .......................................... But, of late a trend can
          be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of their
          retirement waking up from their supine slumber raise a
B
          dispute about their service records, by either invoking the
          jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
          Constitution or by filing applications before the
          Administrative Tribunals concerned, or even filing suits for
          adjudication as to whether the date of birth recorded is
c         correct or not."

    Again in Para 9 of the said judgment it was stated thus: -

          "9. ....................................................As such,
D         unless a clear case on the basis of clinching materials
          which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out
          by the respondent and that too within a reasonable time
          as provided in the rules governing the service, the court
          or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a
          declaration on the basis of materials which make such
E
          claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued
          or declaration made, the court or the Tribunal must be fully
          satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person
          concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has
          been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed,
F         and within the time fixed by any rule or
          order. ................................................... ."

         29. There must be strong, cogent and reliable evidence
    in support of the contention that the date of birth entered in the
G   service records or in the S.S.L.C. certificate was wrongly
    entered by a mistake.

        30. In State of Punjab--v&. Mohinder Singh reported in
    (2005) 3 sec 702, this Court had occasion to deal with the
H   evidentiary value of horoscope as proof of date of birth. It was
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 345
v. M. MANICKAM [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
held in that decision that a horoscope is very weak piece of         A
material to prove age of a person and in most of the cases the
maker may not be available to prove that it was prepared
immediately after the birth and therefore a heavy onus lies on
the person who wants to press it to prove its authenticity. It was
further held that in fact a horoscope to be treated as evidence      B
in terms of Section 32(5) of Evidence Act, 1872, it must be
proved to have been made by a person having special means
of knowledge as regards authenticity of the date, time etc.
mentioned therein. In that context horoscopes have been held
to be inadmissible in proof of age.                                  c
      31. Keeping the aforesaid principles laid down by this
Court in our mind, we proceed to examine the evidentiary value
of the horoscope which is relied upon by the respondent No. 1
in support of his claim. The aforesaid horoscope is the basis
and foundation on which the respondent No. 1 primarily relies D
upon. The said horoscope, therefore, must be shown to have
been made by a person who has special knowledge of making
such a horoscope. The creator of the horoscope or the writer
is not examined in the present case as he was stated to be
dead. None of his family members or any of his acquaintances E
was examined to prove handwriting. In order to come to a
definite decision about the authenticity and evidentiary-value or
 the reliability of the document, we have ourselves closely and
 very minutely considered the horoscope.
                                                                     F
      32. Having gone through the same, we find that although
it is stated to be a notebook containing the horoscopes of all
the sons and daughters of the father of Respondent No. 1 made
at different points of time, but a bare perusal of the document
would indicate that all the horoscopes are made at one point         G
of time by the same person at one go and not on different dates
as sought to be claimed. The book allegedly containing
horoscopes of all persons was shown to be maintained from
1939 to 1953. For all the horoscopes written between a period
of 14 years the same ink was used by the same writer. First          H
    346    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A   horoscope was of 1939 and written in that year in a note book
    distributed and published from Trichy-2. At that time, i.e., before
    independence there was no postal zone. As per materials
    available the Indian Postal Service which was constituted after
    Independence has introduced a PIN code system "the Postal
B Index Number Code System" in India on 15.08.1972. The
    objective of introduction of the said Code was to simplify the
    sorting of mails and thus speed up their transmission and
    delivery. Since this system came in 1972 the note book has to
    be of a period after 1972 and, therefore, the contention that
c immediately on birth of a member in the family, the date of birth
    was entered in the note book has been falsified. Therefore, it
    reinforces the findings of this Court that the Respondent No. 1
    has incorrectly stated the year of preparation of horoscope .. It
    could be deduced from the materials on record that somewhere
0 around 1993 this document was got prepared. If such a
  · notebook was available, nothing is stated as to why the same .~
    could not have been looked at and produced at the time of his
    admission in the school or at the time of his admission in the
    college or even at the time when he was entering into the
E service. From the signature appearing on the school leaving
    certificate, we find that the father of respondent No. 1 was a
    man of letters and there was no reason as to why he would
    subscribe to a wrong age as alleged and that too in his
    S.S.L.C. Certificate.

F       33. The aforesaid S.S.L.C. certificate with the date
  19.3.1947 was produced by him at the time of his entry into
  the college as also in entry into the service knowing fully well
  that, that particular age is factually recorded. The said notebook
  allegedly contained the horoscopes of all the persons prepared
G at different points of time and therefore the said date of birth
  was known to the family and therefore, if it existed at that point
  of time, it would have definitely been placed at the time of his
  entry to the school or admission in the college or the same
  would have been relied upon at least at the time of his entry to
H
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 347
v. M. MANICKAM [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
the service. We reiterate the proposition of law laid down by A
this Court in the aforesaid decision that horoscope is a very
weak piece of material to prove age of a person and that heavy
onus lies on a person who wants to press it into service to prove
its authenticity.
                                                                    B
      34. We are of a firm opinion that respondent No. 1 has
failed to discharge his onus in proving the authenticity of the
aforesaid horoscope on which reliance is placed. Since the
aforesaid horoscope is a primary document on which reliance
is placed for change of his date of birth, therefore, the same is · C
required to be looked into very carefully and minutely so as to
ascertain the genuineness of the claim of respondent No. 1.
There cannot be any bar to examine the authenticity and
evidentiary value of the same while exercising the power under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Power under Article 136
of the Constitution of India permit such a scrutiny particularly D
when it relates to the change of date of birth of a person who
seeks to get an advantage to his benefit to which he otherwise
may not be entitled to. In the decision of this Court in Ramakant
Rai v. Madan Rai and Others reported in (2003) 12 SCC 395,
the ambit and scope of power of Article 136 is stated thus: - E

     "14 ............................. In express terms, Article 136
     does not confer a right of appeal on a party as such but it
     confers a wide discretionary power on this Court to
     interfere in suitable cases. The discretionary dimension is F
     considerable but that relates to the power of the Court.
     Article 136 is a special jurisdiction. It is residuary power;
     it is extraordinary in its amplitude, its limits, when it chases
     injustice, is the sky itself. This Court functionally fulfils itself
     by reaching out to injustice wherever it is and this power G
   · is larg~ly derived in the common run of cases from Article
     136..................................... "

The difference of age in the present case is also considerable,
as it is 3 years, 8 months and 5 days.
                                                                       H
    348    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 10 S.C.R


A        35. When we look into the dispute and the matter from any
    angle, we find that the judgment and the decree passed by the
    Munsif Court which is affirmed by the High Court cannot be
    sustained and is liable to be set aside. We hereby set aside
    the judgment and decree of the High Court and hold that
B   respondent No. 1 has failed to prove that any change of date
    of birth is called for in the present case. The appeals are
    allowed and the suit stands dismissed, leaving the parties to
    bear their own costs.

    R.P.                                       Appeals allowed.




                                                              ...
                                                               "..,,