U.P. MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA PARISHAD AND ORS. versus RAJ KUMAR AGNIHOTRI

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 770 · Decided: 21-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA PARISHAD AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJ KUMAR AGNIHOTRI 
APRIL 2 I, 2005 
B 
[ASHOK BHAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service record : 
Correction in service record-Permissibility-Held: Entries made in 
C Service/Government records on the basis of which the Government setvant 
got the service cannot be allowed to be changed just a few years before 
retirement. 
U.P. Recruitment Service (Determination of the Date of Birth) Rules, 
1974-Ru/e 2-Date of birth recorded in service book-Change of-
D Permissibility-Held: Date of birth or the age recorded in service book at the 
time of entry into the Government service is deemed to be the correct date of 
birth or age/or all purposes-No application or representation to be entertained 
for correction of such date or age. 
U.P. Board of Education-Rule 7 of the G.R.-High School Examination 
E Certificate-Correction of any clerical error-Application to be moved within 
2 years of issue of the certificate-Could not be entertained thereafter. 
Limitation-Long delay in filing suit-Suit for change of date of birth 
filed after 39 years of issuing certificate-Maintainability of-Held: Suit not 
F maintainable being barred by time. 
As per the High School Certificate issued by appellant-Parishad, 
the date of birth of the respondent was 30.7.1941. After 15 years of 
issuance of this certificate, respondent moved an application seieking 
correction of his date of birth from 30.7.1941 to 16.10.1945. In 1995, 
G respondent filed a suit for seeking correction of his date of birth on the 
ground that his date of birth was wrongly entered in his High school 
Certificate. Trial Court decret:d the suit. First appellate court reversed 
the order of trial court holding that respondent had put his signatures on 
the High School Examination form and so he is responsible for the entries 
H 
770 
-
-
U.P. MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA PARISHAD v.R.K. AGNIHOTRI 
771 
in this form. Respondent's appeal before High Court was allowed. Hence A 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the court 
Held : l. The correction of entries made in Government records on 
the basis of which the Government servant got into the service cannot be B 
allowed to be changed just a few years before retirement or at the fag 
end of his service. (782-H; 783-A) 
2.1. In the instant case, the respondent had himself admitted that 
the signature in the High School Examination form was signed by him 
and, therefore, his plea that the form was filled up by his teacher is not at C 
all sustainable. The appellate Court has rightly held that the suit was 
barred by limitation as the relevant rules framed by the U.P. Board of 
Education had not been followed by the respondent. As per Rule 7 of 
G.R., any application for correction is to be made within two years of 
issuing certificate, while in the present case it was made after more than D 
IS years i.e. on 25.05.1981 and the suit was filed on 07.04.1995. (777-F-GJ 
2.2. The High Court, has wrongly held that there was a continuing 
cause of action. The lower appellate Court after perusing the evidence 
had categorically held that the respondent could have summoned the 
record from Kakori Shaheed Inter College, when he got admission in E 
Class IX and documents of his date of birth should have been produced 
by him at the time of admission in Class IX. These documents were the 
best documents to prove the respondent's case which he failed to produce 
before the Court. [777-G; 778-A-B) 
3. The respondent's suit is time barred as he has filed the suit in F 
1995 whereas High School Examination Certificate which is sought to be 
corrected is of 1960 and this certificate was issued in time and he is 
seeking this correction after 35 years. In the present case, the respondent 
has not moved any application within two years of this certificate being 
issued through concerned Principal. (778-E, G) 
State of UP. and Ors. v. Gulaichi (Smt), (2003) 6 SCC 483; State of 
Uttaranchal and Ors. v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2002) l UPLBEC 441 SC; 
State of T.N. v. T. V. Venugopalan, (19941 6 SCC 302; Executive Engineer, 
Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and Ors. v. Rangadhar Mallik, [1993\ Supp 
G 
1 SCC 763; Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. M Hayagreev H 
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A Sarma, (199012 SCC 68i; Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (199312 SOC 
162; Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar and Anr., 
AIR (1995) SC 1499 and The Secretary & Commissioner Hom

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