W.A. Shishak, J.@mdashThe Petitioner herein is seeking a direction to be issued to the Respondents to correct the arithmetical error in matter of computation of date of birth of the Petitioner as 1.7.1942 instead of 1.9.1940 which stands recorded in the Service Book of the Petitioner.
2. The writ Petitioner is serving as Deputy Inspector of School at Wangoi. He passed the matricuilation Examination in 1961. He also passed the B.A. Examination in 1965 from the Gauhati University. Further he passed certain Hindi Examinations viz, (1) Sikshan Kala Pravin in 1960 from Akhil Bharatiya Hindi Parishad, Agra wiiich is equivalent to B.T. in Hindi, (2) Bharatiya Hindi Parangat in 1960 also from the same Institution which is equivalent to M.A. in Hindi and (3) Shikshan parangat in 1966 (equivalent to B.Ed. in Hindi) from the Central Hindi Training Institute, Agra. It may be stated that the Petitioner is an M.A.(Double)in Hindi.
3. The Petitioner was given appointment as Lecturer in Hindi at Chaoyeima Higher Secondary School by an order dated 7.8.1968. He joined on 14.8.1968 as Lecturer. By another order issued on 25.9.1968 the Director of Education appointed the Petitioner as Lecturer in Ma(sic).
4. The Petitioner contends that at the time of entry into service he submitted necessary documents to the competent authority in support of his age to be entered in the service Book. Since the Petitioner had passed Matriculation Examination in 1961. He duly submitted necessary documents including the Matriculation Certificate. He passed Matriculation Examination from Imphal Centre under Roll No. 1339 in 1961 and the age recorded in the said Certificate is 18 years 8 months on the 1st of March, 1961. It is, therefore, contended that the date of birth of the Petitioner should be 1.7.1942 on the basis of the age recorded in the Matriculation Certificate as Stated above.
5. Some time in the month of July, 1971 the Petitioner came to know that his date of birth was wrongly calculated. In the Service Book of the Petitioner, the date of birth of the writ Petitioner is recorded as 1.9.1940. The Petitioner requested the Headmaster of Chaoyaima High Secondary School to put the conect date of birth as 1.7.1942 in the Service Book. The Petitioner bonafide believed that it was duly done. He was transferred from one place to another during the tenure of his service. It did not occur to him that he should check again to see whether error had been corrected in the Service Book. The Petitioner contends that since he was not seeking alteration or change of date of birth but was simply asking for correction in the error of computation of the date of birth in terms of the age recorded in the Matriculation Certificate, he had no reason to doubt that the error would be corrected as a matter of routine.
6. By order dated 27th June, 1998 issued by the Secretary School Education, the Petitioner was notified that he would retire on superannuation with effect from 31.8.1998. In the said order the date of birth of the writ Petitioner is stated as 01.09.1940. Tliat order was issued in respect of 7 (seven) officer and the name of the Petitioner appears at serial 5.
7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27th June, 1998 the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Director of Education (S) for correction of date of birth. It was stated in the said representation that the actual date of birth of the Petitioner is 01.07.1942 as per his Matriculation Examination Certificate as well as Admit Card issued to him. It was further stated that the mistake might have been done by the office assistant at the time of initial entry in the Service Book. The Petitioner submitted original copies of Matriculation Certificate and also Admit card along with his Service Book for perusal and for necessary orders. The Petitioner also stated in the said representation that he had earlier made a request to the Headmaster in this regard and a copy of request made to the Headmaster was duly enclosed.
8. As no order was passed for correction of the error in the entry made in respect of the Petitioner''s date of birth in the service Book, this Petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievance.
9. I have heard Mr. N.G. Kumar, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner as well as Mr. Nimaichand Singh, learned Govt. Advocate. The learned Govt. Advocate has produced relevant Service Book of the writ Petitioner. Entry in Column 6 of the Service Book is as regards date of birth by Christian Era as nearly as can be ascertained. The date of birth is shown as 01.09.1940 as stated above. The Petitioner duly signed in column 11 on 06.02.1969 and in Column 12 the Headmaster of Chaoyaima Higher Secondary School, Thoubal also signed.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the only question to be examined is whether the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book is conect on the basis of Matriculation Certificate of the writ Petitioner. As I have stated above, the Petitioner submits that an error in apthmetical calculation should not be allowed to be the basis for compelling him to retire from service in as much as the correct date of Birth of the writ Petitioner cannot be any other date except 01.07.1942. Mr. Nimaichand has also produced relevant file which deals with the representation of the Petitioner for making necessary correction in the date of birth recorded in the Service Book. At page 150 of the relevant file, the representation of the Petitioner is dealt with. The Department examined original Matriculation Certificate of 1961 under Roll No. 1339 of 1339 of Gauhati University as well as the Admit Card and it is found that the age recorded in the Matriculation certificate is 18 years 8 months. Within bracket it is stated "his date of birth is 1.7.1942". Ultimately the representation of the Petitioner was rejected as follows:
Correction if any is to be done under F.R. 56. So the present claim is not entertainable.
11. Mr. Nimaichand, learned Govt. Advocate draws my attention to F.R. 56(2) Note 5 which is as follows:
NOTE 5.- The date on which a Government servant attains the age of fifty-eight years or sixty years, as the case may be, shall be determined with reference to the date of birth declared by the Government servant at the time of appointment and accepted by the appropriate authority on production, as far as possible, of confirmatory documentary evidence such as High School or Higher Secondary or Secondary School Certificate or extracts from Birth Register. The date of birth so declared by the Government servant and accepted and accepted by the appropriate authority shall not be subject to any alteration expect as specified in the note.
It is submitted that at the fag end of his service the Petitioner''s request for change of date of Birth cannot be entertained. In this regard Mr. Nimaichand refers me to AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2647 and submits that the Petitioner''s case is squarely governed by the decision of this case. On perusal, however, it is found that in the said case the date of birth of the Petitioner which was entered in the Service Book initially was sought to be corrected on the basis of a report submitted by a Revenue officer after holding an enquiry. In such a situation the court was of the view that if such was allowed it would introduce uncertainty in public services. It was further held that though correction of the date of birth of public servant is permissible, such should not be done in a casual manner and that any such order must be passed on materials produced by the public servant from which the irresistible conclusion follows that the date of birth recorded in the Service Book was incorrect. Mr. Nimaichand further submits that a decision rendered in
12. The genuineness of the Matriculation certificate produced by the writ Petitioner is not doubted by the competent authority. In other-words the genuineness of the Matriculation Certificate as well as the Admit Card has not been questioned by any one. It is not the case of the Government that at the time of entry into service the Petitioner submitted a different set of the documents as respects his age. As such it is only to be accepted that since the Petitioner entered service in 1968 after passing the Matriculation Examination as early as in 1961, his age that would be recorded in the Service Book can only be in terms of the Matriculation Certificate. As stated above, the age of the Petitioner as recorded in the matriculation Certificate was 18 years 8 month on 1.3.1961. Once this basis is available, the rest is arithmetic. In other-words since the claim of date of birth is based on a document which is none other than the Matriculation certificate, computation of the date of birth should be done on the basis of this certificate. As in arithmetic-there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong.
13. It is the contention of the writ Petitioner that the basis of his age is only one and that is the Matriculation Certificate. Therefore, whether it is now or at the time of entry of his service in 1968, the same basis for his claim of date of birth is available. In such a situation, I am of the view that the claim of the Petitioner cannot be said to be a claim for alteration or change of date of birth as such, but it is only a claim for making necessary correction in calculating the date of birth on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. Therefore, if the arithmetic of calculation is wrong, it will not be fair to deny the correct answer to the writ Petitioner. If that is so, in my view, the provisions of F.R. 56 is of no consequence whatever.
14. In 1997 2 GLR 53 a division Bench of this Court decided another interesting case. In the said case the age of the writ Petitioner recorded in the Matriculation Certificate was 17 years 6 months on the 1st of March, 1956. He entered service in 1959. The date of birth recorded in his Service Book was 1.8.39. Subsequently the date of birth was corrected by the State Govt. as 1.9.38. The Petitioner took a grievance that the said correction in the date of birth was made at the fog end of the service of the Petitioner and that too without affording any opportunity of being heard. As such the Petitioner submitted that correction in the date of birth was made in violation of principles of natural justice. This Court held that the correction made by the Govt. in the date of birth of the Petitioner was correct and it was only an arithmetical error that was corrected and as such there was no scope for the Petitioner to complain that correction was done in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no prejudice was caused to the Petitioner by making correction in the Service Book in respect of the error in arithmetical calculation. This Court further held that such correction could be done at any time it is noticed. It appears, the aforesaid decision would also lend support to the present case. It is not the case of the government that on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate, the date of birth of the Petitioner is 1.9.1940 and in fact it is irrefutable that the date of birth of the writ Petitioner is 1.7.1942 inasmuch as he was 18 years 8 months on 1.3.1961. Simply because a wrong and incorrect entry was made, the Petitioner cannot be denied his correct age of superannuation on the basis of irrefutable document submitted by him.
15. In the light of the facts and circumstances that I have stated above, this petition in allowed. I hold that the date of birth of the writ Petitioner is 01.07.1942. Accordingly the Petitioner shall retire from service with reference to his date of birth as 01.07.1942. Consequently the impugned Govt. order dated 27.6.1998, Annexure-A/5 quashed.
Petition is disposed of. I pass no order as to costs.
