Correction of Date of Birth in Service Records Cannot Be Entertained at the Fag End of Service.

The petitioner joined the respondent-Board (erstwhile GEB) as a Helper on May 18, 1999. His date of birth (DOB) was recorded as April 28, 1965, based on his School Leaving Certificate

In 2002, the petitioner applied for a DOB correction to April 28, 1967, which the respondent rejected on September 26, 2002, citing Service Regulation 18

The petitioner did not challenge this rejection for 23 years

He later approached the Labour Court, which rejected his reference in 2022

Subsequently, he obtained an ex-parte order from the JMFC in 2024 (without impleading the employer) to correct his school records

Based on this, he filed the present petition in 2025, months before his scheduled retirement, seeking a mandamus for DOB correction in his service records

Whether a request for change of date of birth in service records can be entertained at the fag end of an employee's career after a prior rejection has attained finality.

Whether an order for correction of school records obtained from a Magisterial Court without impleading the employer is binding on the employer for service record purposes.

The court followed the settled principles governing the correction of date of birth as summarized in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja (2021) and reiterated in General Manager, M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. Vice President, United Mines Mazdoor Union (2024). The core rules are: (i) changes must strictly follow relevant service regulations; (ii) cogent evidence does not create an absolute right to change; and (iii) applications are liable to be rejected on grounds of delay and laches, especially when made at the "fag end" of service

The court also applied Service Regulation No. 18 of the respondent-Board, which prescribes a two-year limit from the date of entry into service for such requests

The petition was primarily barred by delay and laches. The employer had already rejected the petitioner’s request in 2002, and by failing to challenge that order for over two decades, the petitioner allowed the decision to attain finality

The court found that the 2002 rejection was consistent with Service Regulation 18, as the petitioner’s application was preferred more than two years after his 1999 appointment

The court held that the 2024 JMFC order and the subsequent correction of the School Leaving Certificate were "too little too late". Under the established Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court refused to allow a DOB change just months before retirement, emphasizing that such claims cannot be entertained at the tail end of a career regardless of the evidence produced elsewhere

The High Court rejected the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.