M INAOCHA SINGH vs STATE OF MANIPUR

KABORA
MBAM
SAPANA
CHANU
Digitally signed
by
KABORAMBAM
SAPANA CHANU
Date: 2026.05.27
13:12:28 +05'30'
Item No. 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP (C) No. 33 of 2018
Maibam Inaocha Singh aged about 58 year old S/o M. Ibobi
Singh a resident of Kongba Kshetri Leikai P.O. Kongba & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur at present serving as
Driver, Medical Department, Manipur, Imphal.
... Petitioner.
-Versus -
1. That State of Manipur represented by the Secretary/
Commissioner/ Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare,
Government of Manipur, Imphal.
2. The Director, Medical & Health Services, Government of
Manipur, Lamphelpat Imphal.
3. Mr. P. Premjit Singh, the then Headmaster of Meitei Mayek
High School, Wangkhei Kongba, I/E, Manipur impleaded as R-
4 vide the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 23.01.2025 passed in
this writ petition.
4. Head Mistress (RK Tamphasana Devi), Meitei Mayek High
School, Wangkhei Kongba, Imphal East impleaded as part R-3
vide order dt. 19.07.2019 passed in MC (WP (C)) No. 189 of
2018.
......Respondents.


B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEMBIMOL SINGH
Mr. S. Lokhendro, Advocate
For the petitioner :
For the respondents : S. Nepolean, Sr. Advocate
RK Emily, Deputy GA
Ms. Maria, Advocate &
Mr. Prasanta, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 26.05.2026
Date of Judgment : 26.05.2026



WP (C) NO. 33 OF 2018 1

JUDGMENT
(ORAL)

[1] Heard Mr. S. Lokhendro, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. S. Nepolean, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. RK
Emily, learned Deputy GA appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2, Ms. Maria,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Prasanta, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.
[2] The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated
17.11.2017 issued by the Director of Health Services, Manipur, allowing
the petitioner to retire from service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 on attaining the age
of superannuation.
[3] The facts of the present case in a nutshell are that on the
recommendation of a DPC held on 25.11.1977, the petitioner was
appointed temporarily as a Driver in the Medical Department Manipur.
According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 01.03.1960,
however, when the petitioner came to know that his date of birth has
been wrongly recorded in his service book and in the Manipur Government
Employees List (MGEL) as 04.03.1957, he approached the Administrative
Officer, Directorate of Health Services, Manipur for correction of his date
of birth in the service book as well as in the MGEL as 01.03.1960. On
receiving such an application, the Administrative Officer, Directorate of
Health Services issued an order dated 05.09.2015 allowing the correction
of the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.03.1960 in his service book and
WP (C) NO. 33 OF 2018 2

for necessary correction in the official document like MGEL. A scanned
copy of the said order dated 05.09.2015 issued by the Administrative
Officer, Directorate of Health Services, Manipur are reproduced here
under for ready reference:-

WP (C) NO. 33 OF 2018 3

[4] Pursuant to the said order dated 05.09.2025 issued by the
Administrative Officer, Directorate of Health Services, Manipur, the entry
of the date of birth of the petitioner at column No. 3 was recorded by the
said Administrative Officer as 01.03.1960.
[5] Subsequently, the Director of Health Services, Manipur issued the
impugned order dated 17.11.2017 allowing the petitioner to retire from
service w.e.f. 31.03.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. The
petitioner’s grievance is that as his date of birth has been recorded in his
service book as 01.03.1960, he is to retire from service only on
28.02.2022 and not w.e.f. 31.03.2017. Hence, the present writ petition.
[6] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in
the educational certificate issued by the Head Master, Meitei Mayek High
School on 04.10.2016 in favour of the petitioner for having passed class-
IX, his date of birth is recorded as 01.03.1960. The learned counsel also
submitted that when the petitioner came to know that his date of birth
has been wrongly recorded in his service book as well as in the Manipur
Government Employees List (MGEL) as 04.03.1957, he approached the
Administrative Officer, Directorate of Health Services for correction of his
date of birth. The said Administrative Officer allowed the correction of the
petitioner’s date of birth in his service book by issuing an order dated
05.09.2015, which has been reproduced herein-above.
WP (C) NO. 33 OF 2018 4

[7] The learned counsel further submitted that the said Administrative
Officer corrected the petitioner’s date of birth in his service book as
01.03.1960 on the basis of the educational certificate produced by him
and as such, the petitioner was to retire from service only w.e.f.
28.02.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation and not w.e.f.
31.03.2017. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned
order dated 17.11.2017 had been issued by the Director of Health
Services, Manipur by overlooking the petitioner’s date of birth recorded in
his service book. According to the petitioner the impugned order dated
17.11.2017 is contrary to the petitioner’s date of birth recorded in his
service book and as such, the same is liable to be quash and set aside.
[8] Mr. S. Nepolean, learned senior counsel appeared for the
respondent No. 1 & 2 and submitted that if the date of birth as claimed by
the petitioner, i.e., 01.03.1960 is taken to be true, the petitioner was less
than 18 years on the date when the meeting of the DPC for his
recruitment as Driver, which was held on 25.11.1977. As such, the
petitioner could not have obtained a driving license as he was less than 18
years in view of the provision under section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. The learned GA further elaborated that if the petitioner cannot
obtain a driving license as he has not attained age of 18 years, he cannot
be considered as an eligible candidate and there is no question of allowing
the petitioner to join the selection process. The learned GA submitted that
WP (C) NO. 33 OF 2018 5

in view of the above, the claim made by the petitioner that his date of
birth is 01.03.1960 is not acceptable.
[9] The learned GA also submitted that the respondent No. 4, the then
Head Master of the Meitei Mayek High School and who issue the
educational certificate to the petitioner, made a categorical statement at
paragraph 5 of his affidavit-in-opposition that the duplicate certificate
issued in favour of the petitioner for having passed class-IX from Meitei
Mayek High School have been issued by him on the strength of a Xerox
copy for Class-IX passed certificate produced by the petitioner in good
faith. The learned GA also submitted that in the affidavit-in-opposition
filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, it has also been clearly stated at
paragraph 5 that there is no record in the Meitei Mayek High School to
show that the writ petitioner passed class-IX examination in the year 1974
and no record to support the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.
The learned GA accordingly submitted that taking into consideration the
categorical statement made by the respondents No. 3 & 4 of the said
Meitei Mayek High School, the certificate produced by the petitioner is not
a valid certificate and the same has been issued without any supporting
records.
[10] The learned GA further submitted that the Administrative Officer
issued the order allowing correction of the date of birth of the petitioner
on 05.09.2015 by stating that in the educational certificate of the
WP (C) NO. 33 OF 2018 6

petitioner his date of birth was recorded as 01.03.1960. However, the said
the educational certificate produced by the petitioner for having passed
Class-IX from the Meitei Mayek High School was issued only on
04.10.2016, one year after the said order had been issued by the
Administrative Officer.
In view of the above, the learned GA submitted that the order
allowing correction of the date of birth of the petitioner was issued
without any valid document and the same is unsustainable. The learned
GA accordingly submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition and
the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
[11] I have heard the rival submission advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties at length and I have also considered carefully all
the materials available on record.
The case of the petitioner is that his date of birth is 01.03.1960
and such claim is based solely on the educational certificate issued by the
Head Master of the Meitei Mayek High School on 04.10.2016.
[12] As narrated herein-above, the respondents No. 3 & 4, who were
the Head Mistress and the Head Master of the said Meitei Mayek High
School, categorically stated in their affidavit-in-opposition that the said
educational certificate of the petitioner was issued on the strength of a
Xerox copy of a certificate produced by the petitioner for having passed
Class-IX and that there is no record to show that the petitioner passed
WP (C) NO. 33 OF 2018 7

Class-IX from said school in 1974. It has also been categorically stated by
the respondents No. 3 & 4 in their affidavits that there is no record to
show that the said educational certificate produced by the petitioner was
issued on the basis of a valid record.
[13] It is also an undeniable fact on record that the correction of the
date of birth of the petitioner was allowed by the Administrative Officer of
the Directorate of Health Services solely on the basis of the educational
certificate issued by the Head Master of the Meitei Mayek High School,
vide order dated 05.09.2015. However, quite surprisingly, when the said
order was issued on 05.09.2015, the duplicate educational certificate of
the petitioner was yet to be issued and it was issued only after one year.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is force and merit in the
submission made by the learned Government Advocate that the order
issued by the Administrative Officer is not acceptable.
[14] On examination of the original service book of the petitioner, it is
ascertained that the petitioner appended his signature in his service book
every year from the date of his appointment till the date of his retirement
and as such, the petitioner cannot claim that he has no acknowledge
about the entry of his date of birth in his service book. In the present case
the petitioner claim for correction of his date of birth only at the fag end
of his service career. In my considered view, such correction is not
permissible in law.
WP (C) NO. 33 OF 2018 8

[15] With regard to the contention made by the leaned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the date of birth of the petitioner is
recorded in his service book as 01.03.1960 till today, it is to be pointed
out that such entry of his date of birth in the service book was carried out
only after 2015 by the Administrative Officer without any valid document
and as such, the petitioner cannot claim that his correct date of birth
should be 01.03.1960.
[16] Taking into consideration all the above stated facts, this Court do
not find any merit in the writ petition, accordingly, the present writ
petition is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.



JUDGE
FR/NRF

Sapana

WP (C) NO. 33 OF 2018 9