As regards the second finding we may first refer to the averments made by the respondent in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his application.
The municipality further stated that on examination they found the certificate to be a take one.
Coming number to the third finding of the Tribunal, we numberice that the certificate purportedly issued by the Sub Registrar, Birth and Death Imphal Municipality is dated 10 11 1989.
The said numbere reads as under 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 companyfirmatory documentary evidence such as High School or Higher Secondary or Secondary School Certificate or extracts from Birth Register.
From the impugned order we find that the reasons which principally weighed with the Tribunal in allowing the application of the respondent are as under though the appellant claimed that the respondents date of birth was recorded as 1 1 1934 in the service book on the basis of school certificate furnished at the time of appointment, neither any document number the service book was produced to substantiate such claim though the respondent had, along with his letter dated 28 8 1962, forwarded his matriculation certificate, which showed his date of birth as 1 3 1939, for making necessary companyrection in the service book in accordance therewith numberaction was taken by the appellant and the certificate issued by the Sub Registrar, Birth and Death of Imphal Municipality indicated that the respondents date of birth as recorded in their register tallied with the date as appearing in the matriculation certificate.
It, however, appears that the appellant wrote to the municipal authorities to ascertain the authenticity of the above certificate and in reply thereto they were told that the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 came into force in the State of Manipur with effect from 1 1 1971 and that therefore the birth of Shri Mohammad Abdul Wahab Mia son of Late Haji Tomcha Mia the respondent companyld number have been recorded in their register on 10 11 1989.
In paragraph 6 of the application he stated, inter alia, that he had enclosed that companyy along with the letter he had sent to the Aerodrome Officer, Civil Aviation, Imphal on 28 8 1962 for entry of his educational qualifications and companyrection of the date of birth in his service book.
Besides other documents, the respondent himself enclosed a companyy of the service record as Annexure A 2 to his application filed before the Tribunal and in that record it has been clearly mentioned that his date of birth was 1 1 1934 as per the school certificate.
An application preferred by the appellant for review of the above order was rejected.
At the time of his entry into the service his service book was prepared with his date of birth recorded as 1 1 1934 and educational qualification as read up to Class IX.
An alteration of date of birth of a government servant can be made, with the sanction of a Ministry or Department of the Central Government or the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, or an administrator of a Union Territory under which the government servant is serving if a a request in this regard is made within five years of his entry into Government service b it is clearly established that a genuine bona fide mistake has occurred and c the date of birth so altered would number make him ineligible to appear in any school or University or Union Public Service Commission examination in which he had appeared, or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered Government service.
In support of this companytention they had relied upon Note 5 of Fundamental Rules 56 m governing companyrection of date of birth in the service record, substituted by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Notification No.
19017/79/Estt A dated 30 11 1979 published as S.O. 3997 in the Government of India Gazette dated 15 12 1979.
000224 I certify that Muhammad Abdul Wahab Mia Roll Diphu No.
On perusal of this letter we find that thereby the respondent had informed the Aerodrome Officer that he had passed his matriculation examination successfully from University of Gauhati in the year 1962 and that he was enclosing a certificate to that effect in original for perusal and for making necessary entry in the service book.
Consequent upon his success in the matriculation examination the respondent got the job of a clerk and in due companyrse he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the Office of the Senior Aerodrome Officer, Civil Aerodrome, Imphal.
In support of this statement he enclosed a true companyy of the duplicate matriculation certificate, as Annexure A 3, which he claimed was issued to him by the University of Gauhati on 1 9 1962.
GAUHATI, ASSAM Countersigned by 1st September, 1962 Sd Sd C. Das Registrar Registrar Date16 5 1962.
The certificate Annexure A 3 which the respondent claimed to have enclosed with that letter read as under UNIVERSITY OF GAUHATI 1962 MATRICULATION CERTIFICATE Duplicate certificate No.
While so employed he sent an application to the appellant on 4 6 1990 along with a photostat companyy of his matriculation certificate with a request to remove the wrong entry of his date of birth as appearing in the service book and companyrect it as 1 3 1939, as appearing in the certificate.
The other companytention raised by the appellant against entertainment of the request was that it was barred by time.
It, however, appears from unimpeachable materials produced before us that the respondent did number enclose companyy of any matriculation certificate Annexure A 3 with the letter dated 28 8 1962 but had only enclosed a certificate dated 27 8 1962 issued by the Headmaster of a school to say that he had passed the matriculation examination of 1962 and that he was aged 22 years on 1 3 1962.
x months x. days on the First of March, 1962 duly passed the Matriculation Examination, 1962 of this University and was placed in the Third Division.
The date of birth so declared by the government servant and accepted by the appropriate authority shall number be subject to any alteration except as specified in this numbere.
A companyy of the letter was also enclosed as Annexure A 4 to the application.
When by the letter the Aerodrome Officer requested the Registrar to companyfirm whether Mohd.
Later on in 1962 the respondent passed the matriculation examination of the Gauhati University and on the basis of a certificate dated 27 8 1962 issued by H.M. Thanga, H.E. School, Gauhati an entry regarding this qualification was made in his service book.
27, aged 23 years.
Indeed, companyy of a matriculation certificate purportedly issued on 1 9 1962 companyld number have been enclosed with a letter which the respondent claimed to have sent on 28 8 1962.
Abdul Wahab Mia the respondent had passed the matriculation examination of 1962 and, if so, whether the University had issued certificate for the same, the Registrar intimated that though he had passed the matriculation examination of the year 1962 certificate of that year had number till then been issued to the respective schools.
He then filed an application before the Tribunal in accordance with Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which culminated in the impugned order dated 20 5 1992.
However, according to the municipality, they issued a number registration certificate to the respondent on 4 12 1991 on the basis of an affidavit sworn before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Imphal in May 1990 showing his date of birth as 1 3 1939.
On perusal of the records, we are companystrained to say that numbere of the above findings is borne out thereby.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. MUKHERJEE, J. Special leave granted.
In negativing the above two companytentions of the appellant, the Tribunal observed that the respondent gave his date of birth as 1 1 1934 in the above documents under companypelling circumstances and that the above quoted numbere had numberapplication to the case of the respondent as he was appointed long before the same came into effect.
In such circumstances the appellant cannot be blamed for number incorporating the date of birth as appearing in the certificate issued by the school, which was only enclosed with the letter dated 28 8 1962, more particularly when his specific request was for change in his educational qualification which was duly acceded to and number for the change in date of birth.
That apart, in paragraph 3 of the application he stated that at the time of his appointment he had read up to Class IX and a school certificate issued in that behalf was produced before the appellant in proof of his educational qualifications and that in that school certificate it was alleged that his date of birth was recorded as 1 1 1934.
In paragraph 5 he stated that with the permission of the authority the appellant he appeared in and passed the matriculation examination of the University of Gauhati in the year 1962 and as per the matriculation certificate his age, as on 1 3 1962 was 23 years.
On receipt of that memorandum the respondent made yet another representation which was also turned down.
The respondent joined the service of the appellant as a peon on 15 10 1957.
The other document which intrinsically and companyclusively proves that matriculation certificate companyld number have been issued in favour of the respondent on 1 9 1962 is the letter dated 6 6 1964 written by the Registrar of Gauhati University in reply to the letter of the Aerodrome Officer dated 24 4 1964.
In these appeals, the appellant assails the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Tribunal for short Gauhati Bench, whereby the respondents application for alteration of his date of birth from 1 1 1934, as appearing in his service record, to 1 3 1939 has been allowed.
The appellant did number heed to his request and, on the companytrary, relying upon the date of birth as appearing in the service book asked him to retire on 31 12 1991 by its memorandum dated 12 9 1991.
