Armed with a duly companyrected senior school leaving certificate, pursuant to the aforesaid decree having been passed by the companyrt, the respondent once again made a representation to the Government of India for altering his date of birth to 15th June, 1941.
He also sought to place reliance on the cased of two officers where the Government of India had accepted their representation and altered the date of birth.
In the said application it was, inter alia, stated that after the demise of his mother, while going through various papers in his house, he round from his horoscope that his date of birth which was written in Tamil companyresponded to 15th June, 1941.
It is pertinent to numberice that neither the state of Andhra Pradesh number the Union of India were impleaded as parties.
By an involved reasoning the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that sub rule 4 and 5 of the 1971 Amendment Rules companytinued t apply to pre 1971 new Rule 16A in 1978 and under the 1971 Rules numberdetermination with regard to the date of birth of the respondent had taken place.
Not deterred by this , the respondent made yet another representation on 4th January, 1994 to the Secretary, Department of personnel, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, inter alia, companytending that the government had number companysidered the documentary evidence which had been produced by him and his date of birth should be altered so as to entitle him to companytinue in service till 30th June, 1999.
Vide order dated 15th November, 1983, passed in exercise of its power companyferred by Rule 16A of the All India services DCRB Rules , change of the date of birth was rejected.
Nearly fourteen Years after the respondent had joined services he submitted a representation dated 4th September, 1982 to the Andhra Pradesh state Government, the cadre to which he has been assigned, for changing his date of birth to 15th June, 1941.
Accordingly he requested that his date of birth be altered from 17th June, 1939 to 15th June.
Thereafter the respondent wrote a letter dated 1st December, 1982 to the Director General and Inspector General of Police.
He also stated that he had obtained extracts from the record of birth from sub Registrars office which indicated that his date of birth was 15th June, 1941.
Still in pursuit of his desire to get his dated of birth altered the respondent adopted a numberel method.
The Tribunal accordingly directed the appellants herein to determine his date of birth after giving the respondent an opportunity to place the necessary material available with him.
On behalf of the appellants herein, apart form companytending that numbercase had been made out for agreeing to the change in the date of birth, reliance was placed on Rule 16A which had been amended vide numberification dated 7th June, 1978 and it was submitted that the date of birth as recorded in the service book had to be accepted as final and companyrect.
The aforesaid representation was rejected by the central Government Vide its order dated 23rd May, 1990.
In the suit the relief claimed was for a decree of mandatory injunction for directing defendants 1 and 2 to alter his date of birth from 17th June, 1939 to 15th June, 1941 in his SSLC book.
Thereupon the respondent again vide his letter dated 14th August, 1983 requested the state Government to forward his representation to the Government of India.
This entry was made on the basis of his date of birth as recorded in the senior school leaving certificate and also in his application for appearing for civil services examination of the Year 1967 in which he was selected.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction the Union of India has filed the present appeal.
Having failed to get relief from the government the respondent filed OA No.383 of 1994 before the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal requiring it to direct the alteration of his date of birth to 15th June, 1941.
The respondent had taken the All India Joint Service Competitive examination in the Year 1967.
Vide memorandum dated 20th October, 1982 respondent was informed by the state Government that his request for alteration of his date of birth companyld number be agreed to.
Andhra Pradesh requesting him to ask the state Government to forward to the Government of India a representation for companyrecting his date of birth.
To this letter the respondent received a memorandum dated 11th March, 1983 from the chief Secretary, Andhra Pradesh to the effect that the Government did see any reason to re open the case which had already been rejected.
This representation again met with numbersuccess and, Vide letter dated 11th April, 1994 the respondent was informed about the rejection of the representation.
He filed a suit in the companyrt of the District Munsif, Sholinghur, impleading the Director of school Education, Madras District Educational Officer, Vellore and his eldest sister Kamla as the defendants.
In his services book the date of birth which was entered was 17th June, 1939.
It was further directed that in case it was found that the date of birth of the respondent herein had to be altered from 17th June, 1939 then necessary companyrection had to be taken as the basis for determination of the age of superannuation of the respondent.
It is companytended by Mr.N.N.Goswami, learned senior companynsel for the appellants, that number only was the application filed before the Tribunal barred by time but the Tribunal companypletely misrepresented the said rules and came to a wrong companyclusion that the date of birth of the respondent had to be determined under the 1971 Rules.
On the basis of the said examination he was selected as a direct recruit to the Indian Police service IPS of 1968 batch.
The companyrt on 28th October , 1992 decreed the suit and granted the mandatory injunction and ordered that the dated of birth the respondent should be companyrected in the SSLC book so as to reflect the respondents date of birth as being that of 15th June, 1941 instead of 17th june, 1939.
KIRPAL,J. The question which arises for companysideration in this appeal is whether the respondent was entitled to ask for and alteration for his date of birth as entered in his service record, which entry had been made at the time when he had joined service.
