STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. versus GORAKHNATH SITARAM KAMBLE & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 16-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 752 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
v. 
GORAKHNATH SITARAM KAMBLE & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9704 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 16, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Service Laws: 
Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions) Rules, 
1981 - r.38(2)(f) - Date of birth - Record of, in service book 
at the time of entry into service - Application for correction of 
date of birth at the end of the service career after a lapse of 
twenty six years - Held: Cannot be entertained...: A/so, in view 
0 of the Notification dated 24. 12. 2008 and the instructions in the 
Rules, no application for alteration of date of birth after five 
years could be entertained - Thus, order passed by the High 
Court, that date of birth could be permitted to be changed at 
the fag end of the career, not sustainable. 
E 
In the year 1978, the respondent was appointed as a 
teacher. His date of birth was recorded as 02.06.1949 in 
his service book. The school leaving certificate was 
submitted as the proof for the same. In the year 2004, the 
respondent filed an application before the Education 
F Officer seeking correction of his date of birth in the 
service record of the Tehsildar as 03.05.1951. The 
application was rejected. The Head Master, Zilla Parishad 
also rejected the application. The respondent then filed 
a writ petition. The High Court allowed the petition 
G holding that the date of birth could be permitted to be 
changed at the fag end of the career of the respondent. 
Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 
H 
752 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. v. GORAKHNATH 753 
SITARAM KAMBLE 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 According to the notification dated 
24.12.2008, the date of birth of Government servants 
cannot be changed after five years, from 16.08.1981. 
Assuming the notification is applicable only for 
8 
employees who joined after 16.08.1981, even then 
according to the 'instruction(1 )' of the Maharashtra Civil 
Services (General Conditions) Rules, 1981, no application 
for alteration of entry regarding date of birth should be 
entertained after a period of five years. [Para 11) [758-B-
C 
CJ 
1.2 It is well settled that the employees should not be 
permitteC: to change the date of birth at the fag end of his 
service career. In the instant case, the application of 
alteration was filed at the fag end of his service career 
D 
after a lapse of twenty eight years. The correction at the 
fag end would be at the cost of large number of 
employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must 
be discouraged by the court. Thus, the approach of the 
High Court in re-writing the Rules cannot be approved or 
E 
sustained. The impugned judgment is set aside. [Paras 
12, 19, 20 and 21) [758-F; 761-E-F; 762-E-F] 
Union of India vs. Harnam Singh (1993) 2 SCC 162; 
State of Tamil Nandu vs. T. V. Venugopalan (1994) 6 SCC 
302; Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and 
F 
Ors. vs. R.Kirubakaran (1994) Suppl.(1) SCC 155; 
U.P.Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and Ors. vs. Raj Kumar 
Agnihotri (2005) 11 SCC 465; State of Uttaranchal and Ors. 
vs. Pitamber Dutt Semwal (2005) 11 SCC 477; Government 
of AP.and Anr. vs. M.Hayagreev Sarma (1990) 2 SCC 682; 
G 
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Gulaichi (Smt.) (2003) 6 
SCC 483; Executive Engineer, Bhadrak ( R & BJ Division, 
Orissa and Ors. vs. Rangadhar Mallik (1993) Suppl.1 SCC 
763 - relied on. 
H 
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Case Law Reference: 
(1993) 2 sec 162 
Relied on 
Para 13 
(1994) 6 sec 302 
Relied on 
Para 14 
B 
(1994) Suppl.(1) sec 155 Relied on 
Para 15 
(2005) 11 sec 465 
Relied on 
Para 16 
(2005) 11 sec 477 
Relied on 
Para 17 
(1990) 2 sec 682 . 
Relied on 
Para 18 
c 
(2003) 6 sec 483 
Relied on 
Para 18 
(1993) Suppl.1 sec 763 Relied on 
Para 18 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
D 9704 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.01.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6531 of 
2006. 
E 
Shankar Chilarge (for Asha Gopalan Nair) for the 
F 
Appellants. 
Pravin Satale (for Naresh Kumar) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Applications for exemption 
from filing Official Translation and certified copy of the impugned 
order are allowed. 
G 
Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
2. This appeal emanates from the judgment of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay delivered in

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