RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Sri Avanish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the service of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 14 -6 -1972. Admittedly in the service record of the petitioner maintained by the Respondent -Corporation, his date of birth was shown as 2 -2 -1947. On 19 -10 -2004, an order was passed by the Service Manager of the Corporation wherein it was provided that the petitioner was to retire on 28 -2 -2005 on his reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioner has challenged the said order by means of the present writ petition and has also prayed for a direction that he may not be retired on 28 -2 -2005 as according to the school leaving certificate, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition, his date of birth is 2 -1 -1948. According to the petitioner, he has filed a representation on 6 -10 -2004 requesting the Respondent -Corporation to amend the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of the school leaving certificate, which had been issued on 8 -7 -1961.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY the date of birth of the petitioner in his service record for more than three decades remained as 2 -2 -1947. Just at the fag end of his career, the petitioner has filed an application for amending his date of birth in the service record merely on the basis of school leaving certificate. According to the own case of the petitioner the said school leaving certificate is dated 8 -7 -1961 and thus must have been in his possession at the time of his joining the service. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the representation for correction of the date of birth made after more than three decades of his joining the service would not be permissible and the correctness and genuineness of the certificate produced after more than four decades of its issuance would be highly doubtful and cannot be relied upon. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India and others v. Kantilal Hematram Pandya, AIR 1995 SC 1349. Similar view has also been taken in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. S.C. Chadha, (2004) 3 SCC 394. In the present case also the application for correction of his date of birth has been moved by the petitioner at the fag end of his career just a few months before his retirement, merely on the basis of school leaving certificate issued in the year 1961. Thus in such circumstances, the date of birth cannot be corrected at such belated stage just on the verge of his retirement. Even the genuineness of his school leaving certificate issued more than four decades back cannot be free from doubt.