PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH versus MEGH RAJ GARG AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 20-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 172 
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 
v. 
MEGH RAJ GARG AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 1591 of 2006) 
MAY 20, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Punjab Civil Service Rules: 
Vol. I, Chapter II, Annexure-A, Para I (as it stood prior to 
the 1994 amendment) - Correction of date of birth - HELD: 
In view of the statutory provision, there being a complete bar 
to the making of an application by a government servant after 
D two years from the date of his entry into service, the High Court 
or the State Government did not have the power, jurisdiction 
or authority to entertain the representation made by the 
judicial officer concerned after more than twelve years of his 
entering into the service -
Therefore, neither of them 
E committed any illegality by refusing to accept the prayer 
made by the judicial officer on the basis of the change effected 
by the University in the date of birth recorded in the 
matriculation certificate. 
F 
The date of birth of respondent no. 1, who joined 
service as Sub-Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, in March 
1973, was recorded in the service book as 27.3.1936, in 
accordance with the matriculation certificate. After ten 
y1~ars of joining the service, he made an application for 
G correcting his date of birth in the matriculation certificate 
as 27.3.1938. The Syndicate of the University allowed the 
prayer. Accordingly, necessary changes were made in the 
certificate. Thereafter, respondent no.1 represented to the 
State Government for change of his date of birth in the 
H 
172 
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH v. 173 
MEGH RAJ GARG 
service record. The State Government in consultation 
A 
with the High Court rejected the prayer. Respondent no. 
1 then filed a suit for declaration that the decision of the 
State Government and the High Court was illegal, void 
and ineffective, and for a mandatory injunction directing 
the defendants to change his date of birth in the service 
B 
book from 27.3.1936 to 27.3.1938. The suit was decreed. 
The lower appellate court and the High Court affirmed the 
decree. Aggrieved, the High Court filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. This Court has time and again cautioned 
civil courts and the High Courts against entertaining and 
accepting the claims made by the employees long after 
entering into service for correction of the recorded date 
of birth. [para 12] (182-H; 183-A] 
Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993) 2 SCC 162; 
Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others 
v. R. Kirubakaran 1994 Supp.(1) SCC 155 and Union of India 
vs. C. Rama Swamy (1997) 3 SCR 760, relied on. 
1.2. In view of Para 1 of Annexure-A to Chapter II of 
the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume 1 (as it stood at 
c 
D 
E 
the time respondent No.1 joined service and also on the 
date of his making an application for correction of the 
date of birth recorded in his service book), which has 
F 
direct bearing on the issue relating to maintainability of 
the suit, there is a complete bar to the making of an 
application by the government servant for correction of 
his recorded age after two years from the date of his 
entry into government service. In the instant case, 
G 
respondent No.1, ten years after entering into the service, 
submitted the application to the University for effecting 
change in the date of birth recorded in the matriculation 
certificate. It is thus evident that respondent No.1 applied 
for change of the date of birth recorded in his service 
H 
174 
SUPREME .COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A book much beyond the time limit of two years specified 
In the rule. Therefore, 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 No.1. Neither of them committed any illegality 
B by refu~ing to accept the prayer made by respondent 
No.1 or· the basis of change effected by the 'Jniversity 
in the date of birth recorded in his matriculation 
certificate. [para 9-11] [179-G-H; 180-D-H; 181-G] 
1.3. The decision taken by the Syndicate of the 
C University to accept the request of responuent no. 1 did 
not give him any cause for filing application or making 
representation for change of the date of birth recorded 
in the service book. It is, therefore, held that the suit filed 
by respondent No.1 for correction of the date of birth 
D recorded in his service book after twelv

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.