UNION OF INDIA versus C. RAMA SWAMY AND OTHERS

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 760 · Decided: 09-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
C. RAMA SWAMY AND OTHERS 
APRIL 9, 1997 
B 
[J.S. VERMA, CJ. AND B.N. KIRPAL, J.] 
Se1vice Law : 
Date of bitth-Alteration of-All India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958, 
C Rule 16A-Rule 16A i11setted by Notification of 1971-Rule 16A inse1ted by 
Notification of 1978-Applicability of-Acceptance and 1wt detenni11ation of 
date of birth by the Central Govemment-P1i11ciple of estoppel:-Applicability 
of-Senior School Ce11ificate, applicatio11 for civil se1vices examination and 
service book me11tio11i11g date of bitth different from that mentioned in the 
D horoscope and in the record of bitth maintained in Registrar's Office which 
is claimed to be correct on~Representation made after a gap of many years 
for con·ection of date of bitth in the .wvice registe1~Held, principle of 
estoppel applicable-Relief of change of date of bitth denied. 
The respondent was selected as a direct recruit to the IPS of 1968 
E batch. In his servict! book, 17th June, 1939 was entered as his date of birth. 
This was the date recorded in his Senior School Certificate and also 
mentioned in his application for Civil Services examination. In 1982, abont 
14 years from the date of his joining the services, he submitted a repre· 
sentation to the Andhra Pradesh State Government, the cadre to which he 
F 
had been assigned, for changing his date of birth from 17th June, 1939 to 
15th June, 1941. It was stated that his horoscope and the record of birth 
maintained by the Sub-Registrar's office indicated that his date of birth 
was 15th June, 1 IJ41. The Andhra Pradesh Government rejected his request 
for alteration. Later on his request was turned down by the Central 
Government. 
G 
Thereafter, the respondent filed a suit' in the Munsif Court, implead· 
ing the Director of School Education, Madras and others but not the 
Union Government and the State Government. The relief claimed was for 
a decree of mandatory injunction for a direction to change his date of 
H birth. The Court passed an order for necessary correction. 
760 
U.0.1. v. C. RAMASWAMY 
761 
The respondent armed with a duly corrected Senior School Certifi-
A 
cate, once again made a representation to the Government of India for 
changing his date of birth but the same was rejected. Another repre-
sentation to the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Ministry of Home 
Affairs, Government of India was also rejected. 
The respondent then approached the Central Administrative B 
Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that 1971 Rules continued 
to apply to pre 1971 direct recruits and accordingly directed that necessary 
correction be made after examination of necessary material. Union of 
India, aggrieved by the Tribunal's direction has filed the present Appeal. 
Allowing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1: Rule 16A of the All India (DCRB) Rules, 1958 inserted 
by Notification of 1978 and not the repealed Rule 16A inserted by Notifica-
tion of 1971, applies to all persons of the All India Service to whom All 
c 
India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958 are applicable. [765-D; 769-D] 
D 
2. Rule 16A of 1978 alone is applicable in the present case as it was 
in that the respondent made the first representation for alteration in his 
date of birth. [769-C] 
3.1. The date of birth as recorded in the service book in the case of E 
pre 1971 direct recruits is accepted by the Central Government. It accepts 
and does not determine date of birth. It accepts the date of birth except 
where a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed. In this case, June 
17, 1939 was the date of birth which was recorded in the service book and 
which was required to be accepted by the Central Government under 16A 
of 1978. [771-B; 770-F-G] 
3.2. Bonafide clerical mistake would normally be one where by mis-
take or oversight a different date is recorded. In this case, the respondent 
believed June 17, 1939 to be his correct date of birth and it was not a case 
F 
of any bonafide clerical mistake. In his original representation, he had G 
never even suggested that there had been any clerical mistake. The positive 
case put forth by him was that he only subsequently discovered his real 
date of birth. [771-D-G] 
4. It cannot be said that advantage is not obtained by a person who 
subsequently claims to be younger. It would be against public policy to H 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A permit a change in the earlier date of birth to enable longer benefit to the 
person concerned. The

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