G V VIJAYARANGAM Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon' ; ble court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the order of the second respondent bearing Ref. Acct. No. 646, dated 10th June, 1983 including the said order and quash the same by issue of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus or any order or any other appropriate writ of like nature under Art. 226 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the service of the State Bank of India till the close of business on 6th August, 1987 (inclusive of two years' ; non-pensionable service) and pass such further or other order or direction or declaration which this Hon' ; ble court may deem fit and proper and render justice.' ; 1. The impugned order, dated 10th June, 1983, directs the petitioner to retire from the service of the respondents at the close of the business on 6th August, 1983. The petitioner' ; s date of birth stands registered in the service records of the respondents as 7th August, 1923. He had the benefit of two extensions each of one year, which is permissible under the service rules. The impugned order has come to be passed only after these two indulgences of extension have been exhausted. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 17th July, 1927. He had been insisting for the alteration of his date of birth as 17th July, 1927 initially enclosing a school certificate, and subsequently forwarding the order obtained under Sec. 13 (3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Act 18 of 1969), hereinafter referred to as the Act' ; , read with R. 10 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Rules framed thereunder. This order was obtained after the respondents refused to accept the stand of the petitioner that his date of birth was 17th July, 1927. By implication, we have to take it that by the impugned order the respondents also declined to accept the order obtained under the Act even though the impugned order does not say so in so many terms. The impugned order has come to be passed only after the petitioner forwarded the order obtained under the Act as well as a certificate of birth issued on the basis of the said order. Mr. G. Venkata-raman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that sanctity and conclusiveness have got to be attached to the order passed under the Act. I do not think that this contention could be accepted because it is a well-settled proposition that an entry in any public record or official register or record, though a relevant fact under Sec. 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, is not conclusive presumptive proof of what is entered there. If a dispute arises over such entry, it has got to be resolved in an ordinary Civil Court and no one can insist that the entry must be acted upon as conclusive proof of what is stated therein by any authority especially when a dispute exists over the same. While repelling the contention that the entry made under the Act is conclusive. K. Jagannatha shetty, J. of the High Court of Karnataka in H. Subba Rao v. L. I. C. of India, (1976)1 Kar. L. J. 283: 1976 S. L. J. 44: A. I. R. 1976 Karn. 231, observed as follows: ' ; It is an accepted principle that an entry in the Register of Births is not conclusive evidence of the disputed date of birth. So also, an entry made pursuant to the direction of the Magistrate under Sec. 13 (3) of the Act. . . . . The policy of the law enbodied in the section, as it appears to me, is to avoid manipulation in the entries relating to the date of births and deaths. Such entry shall be made Immediately after the occurrence. Precaution should be taken while making delayed entries. The law says that an entry which has not been made within one year of its occurrence cannot be made without an order of the Magistrate. S. 13 (3) of the Act is just a constraint on the Registrar. It is not a provision whereby an aggrieved party could get an adjudication on his disputed date of birth. The order of the Magis-trate binds only the Registrar and not others. The entry made by the Registrar, pursuant to an order of the magistrate, cannot carry higher probative value and its proof must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case' ;. I fully endorse the view of the learned Judge.

(2.) LEARNED counsel would further contend that in the impugned order, no reference is made to the order obtained under the Act and the certificate of birth issued on the basis of the same and the matter requires at least a fresh examination at the hands of the respondents. In view of the above legal position this will be a futile proces and I do not think that this Court should adopt this course. It is upto the petitioner to resort to the ordinary civil process to obtain a declaration of his correct date of birth. In this view, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.