Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusMRS. SAROJ BALA

Citation: 1995 INSC 890
Decided: 13 December 1995
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYB L HANSARIA

Holding

The Tribunal’s order correcting the respondent’s date of birth is illegal and must be set aside.

Summary

Mrs. Saroj Bala, a civil servant, had her date of birth recorded as 4 April 1949 in university records and consequently in her service record when she joined the All India Revenue Service in 1972. After 18 years of service, she sought to correct her date of birth to 5 April 1950, obtaining a birth certificate and other supporting documents, but the University and the Government rejected her application. She appealed to the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed that her service record be corrected to reflect the new date of birth. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the correction after such a long period was unjustified and illegal. The Court held that the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in allowing the correction, emphasizing that the date of birth had been undisputed for 18½ years and that the applicant’s late discovery could not override service law principles. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a civil servant’s date of birth recorded in service records can be corrected after a prolonged period of service.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to order correction of personal particulars in a service record under the circumstances.
Whether the evidence presented (birth certificate, affidavit, horoscope) is sufficient to justify correction of the date of birth after 18 years.

Subjects

date of birth correctionservice lawcentral administrative tribunalcivil serviceservice record amendmentjurisdictionstatutory limitation

Judgment

A                          UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                                     v.
                             MRS. SAROJ BALA

                              DECEMBER 13, 1995

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

          Service Law :

          Date of Birth-Correction of-Application for-Filed after 18-1!2
C   years-~entral Administrative      Tiibunal directed correction of date of
    bi1th-Held: It was unthinkable that having remained in service for 18 years
    the applicant discovered that her date of birth was wron15ln the circumstan-
    ces of the case, the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in directing co"ection of
    date of birth.

D         The resJJonrlent had ap1icarcd for All India Civil Services Examina-
    tion wherein she had annexed her school record in which her date of birth
    was recorded as AJJril 4, 1949. On the basis of the selection in the competi-
    tive examination, she was selected for All India Revenue Service (Income·
    Tax). She aJJproached the University for correction of her date of birth to
E   be AJJril 5, 1950. 111e University had rejected the same. The respondent
    then filed an application for correction of the date of birth which was
    rejected by the Government. Thereafter, the resJJondent filed a petition in
    the Central Administrative Tribunal for correction of her date of birth.
    The Tribunal allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's judgment
    the aJJpellants preferred the present appeal.
F
          Allowing the appeal, this Court

           HELD : 1.1. The respondent's parents are not illiterate. She is well
    educated. She comJJeted in All India Civil Services Examination. Her date
G   of birth was registered in the University to be April 4, 1949. On that basis,
    she appeared for the examination aud she was selected. The said date has
    been entered in the service record and remained undisputed for 18-1/2
    years. [658-C]

         1.2. It is unthinkable that having been born in an educated family
H   and having remained in service for 18 years she discovered that her date
                                       656
                           U.0.1. v. SAROJ BALA                      657

of birth would be wrong. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was A
wholly unjustified and obviously illegal in allowing the application and
directing correction of the date of birth. [658-D]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil appeal No. 12073 of
1995.
                                                                           B
      From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.92 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No. 1043-CH of 1991.

     K. Lahiri, P. Parmeshwaran, T.V. Ratnam and S.N. Terdol for the
Appellants.
                                                                           c
        R.S. Suri for the Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Leave granted.
                                                                           D
       We have heard the counsel for both the parties. The respondent has
appeared in the year 1971 for the All India Civil Services Examination
wherein she had annexed her school record in which her date of birth was
recorded as April 4, 1949. On the basis of the selection in the competitive
examination, she was selected for All India Revenue Service (income·Tax) E
in the year 1972 and she joined the service in the said year, On June 18,
1985, she approached the University for correction of her date of birth to
be April 5, 1950. The University by its proceedings dated October 13, 1986
had rejected the same. The respondent then filed an application on
February 5, 1991 for correction of the date of birth which was rejected by ·
the Government on April 4, 1991. Thereafter the respondent filed O.A. in F
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. By the impugned order
dated 6.1.1992, the Tribunal held that the date of birth of the respondent
is April 5, 1950 and directed correction of her date of birth in the service
record within the time specified in the order. Thus this appeal by special
leave.
                                                                           G
       Shri R.S. Suri, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent,
contended that the birth certificate given by the Registrar do indicate that
her date of birth is April 5, 1950 and that the mother had filed an affidavit
in support thereof. It is also sought corroboration from the date of birth
certificate of her elder sister and due to close proximity of six months H
    658                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A between the birth of two children, it would not be possible that the
    respondent would have been born. He also relied upon the horoscope to
    prove her date of birth.

          We are wholly unable to appreciate the stand of the respondent. The
    respondent's parents are not illiterate. She is a well educated one she
B   competed in All India Civil Services Examination. Her date of birth was
    registered in the University to be April 4, 1949. On that basis, she appeared
    for the examination, sought selection and accordingly she was selected. The
    said date has been entered in the service record and remained undisputed
    for 18-1/2 years. Subsequently it appears that she discovered in a talk with
C   her sister that her date of birth is incorrect. Then enquiries were made and
    birth certificate obtained which mentioned the birth of the child and the
    parentage of the respondent. Horoscope was also sought to be set up to
    corroborate those circumstances.

        It is unthinkable that having been born in an educated family and
D having remained in service for 18 years she discovered that her date of
  birth would be wrong. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was wholly
  unjustified and obviously illegal in allowing the application and directing
  correction of the date of birth. Though Mr. Suri sought to bring to our
  notice that she made her representation in the year 1981, it is of little
E importance for disposal of the matter on merits.
             The order of the tribunal is set asdie. The Appeal is allowed. No
    costs.

    v.s.s.                                                      Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "date of birth correction"Sign in to search