STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus SMT. GULAICHI

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 25-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT. GULAICHI 
JULY 25, 2003 
B 
[DORAJSWAMY RAJU AND ARJJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] 
Service Laws: 
U.P. Recruitment of Service (Determination of Date of Birth) (First 
C Amendment) Rules, 1980-Rule 2--Claim for correction of date of birth few 
days before date of superannuation-Declaratory suit filed-Dismissed by 
trial court-Allowed by First Appellate Court and High Court-On appeal, 
Held: In view of Rule 2 it is not permissible to correct the date of birth-First 
Appellate Court as well as High Court lost sight of statutory provision, acted 
D on irrelevant, inadmissible materials and ignored relevant materials-Thus 
the order of trial court restored-High Court's order set aside. 
Constitution of India, 1950--Article 136-/nterference-When called 
for-Held: When courts below lost sight of statutory provision, acted on 
irrelevant and inadmissible materials, ignoring relevant materials, interference 
E is permissible. 
Respondent joined services under the appellant-State and in the service 
book her date of birth was recorded as 31. 7.1929. Few days before the date of 
retirement she claimed her date of birth to be 31.7.1939. Officer concerned 
carried out the correction in her service book. Respondent then filed a rnit 
F for a declaration that her date of birth was 31.7.1939 and by mistake the 
employee of the department wrongly recorded it as 31.7.1929. Trial Court 
dismissed the suit. First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the 
suit to the effect that the date of birth of the respondent was 31. 7.1939. High 
Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Appellants contended that the First Appellate Court as well as the High 
Court considered irrelevant materials and left out the relevant materials for 
correcting the date of birth; the U.P. Recruitment of Service (Determination 
of Date of Birth) (First Amendment) Rules, 1980 clearly delineate the area 
of permissible correction; that there is no scope for effecting any change, 
H that too just a few days before the date of superannuation; and that the person 
762 
STATEv.GULAICHI 
763 
who carried out the corrections had no authority in law to do so. 
A 
Respondent-employee contended that findings of fact have been recorded 
relating to the correct date of birth; and that the First Appellate Court as 
well as the High Court considering the relevant materials rightly and in 
accordance with law decided the issue in favour of respondent and thus, no 
interference was called for. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. An application for correction of the date of birth should not 
be dealt with by the Courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only 
the public servant concerned. Any such direction for correction of the date of C 
birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others 
waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in 
this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury. There are cases 
when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of 
his immediate senior. This is an important and relevant aspect which should D 
be looked into by the courts while examining the grievance of a public servant 
in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on 
the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made 
out by the respondent and that too within a time fixed and in accordance with 
the procedure prescribed in the rules governing the service, the Court or the 
Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaratism on the basis of E 
materials which make such claim only plausible. If no rule or order has been 
framed or made, then such application must be within a reasonable time. 
Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant to prove about 
the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases, 
public servants approach the Court on the eve of their retirement, questioning F 
the correctness of date of birth. The court or the Tribunal must be slow in 
granting an interim relief or continuation in service, unless prima facie 
evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant 
succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed 
undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby causing injustice to his 
immediatejunior.1768-C-F, G-H; 769-A-BJ 
G 
1.2. In the insta

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