Request for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service is impermissible.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the correction of the petitioner's date of birth by the Administrative Officer was based on valid documentation and legally sustainable.

The court held

The Court specifically held that the petitioner could not claim a different DOB at the end of his career after decades of acknowledging the original entry.

It also directed

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the correction order issued by the Administrative Officer was unsustainable as it lacked valid supporting documentation and upheld the impugned retirement order dated 17.11.2017.

01Facts

The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the Medical Department, Manipur, on 25.11.1977.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

His date of birth (DOB) was originally recorded in his service book and the Manipur Government Employees List (MGEL) as 04.03.1957.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

In 2015, nearing retirement, the petitioner approached the Administrative Officer (AO) to correct his DOB to 01.03.1960. The AO issued an order on 05.09.2015 allowing the correction.

pp. 2-3 · ¶ 3

Subsequently, the Director of Health Services issued an order dated 17.11.2017 retiring the petitioner effective 31.03.2017 based on the original 1957 record.

p. 4 · ¶ 5

The petitioner challenged this retirement, claiming he should serve until 28.02.2020 (or 2022) based on the corrected DOB.

p. 4 · ¶ 5 · p. 5 · ¶ 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the correction of the petitioner's date of birth by the Administrative Officer was based on valid documentation and legally sustainable.

p. 7 · ¶ 13

ii.2. Whether a government servant can seek correction of their date of birth at the fag end of their service career.

p. 8 · ¶ 14

03Law Applied

Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates a minimum age of 18 years to obtain a driving license.

p. 5 · ¶ 8

The established legal principle that a government employee is not permitted to seek correction of their date of birth at the "fag end" of their career, especially when they have regularly signed and acknowledged the existing service records throughout their tenure.

p. 8 · ¶ 14

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 4

04Reasoning

If the petitioner's DOB were 01.03.1960, he would have been under 18 during the 1977 recruitment DPC, making him ineligible for a driving license and the post of Driver.

p. 5 · ¶ 8

The "duplicate" educational certificate used to justify the DOB correction was issued on 04.10.2016, a year after the AO had already issued the correction order in 2015, rendering the AO's order baseless.

pp. 6-7 · ¶ 10, 13

School authorities (Respondents 3 & 4) filed affidavits stating they had no records to support the certificate and that it was issued in "good faith" based on a photocopy provided by the petitioner.

p. 6 · ¶ 9 · pp. 7-8 · ¶ 12

The Court noted that the petitioner had signed his service book annually since 1977, implying full knowledge of the 1957 DOB entry.

p. 8 · ¶ 14

05Holding

The Court specifically held that the petitioner could not claim a different DOB at the end of his career after decades of acknowledging the original entry.

p. 8 · ¶ 14-15

p. 7 · ¶ 13 · p. 9 · ¶ 16

LawLens.Manipur High Court

Original Court PDF