PREMLAL SHRIVAS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the M. P. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, dated 18-4-2001, passed in O. A. No. 1253/1995.

(2.) THE petitioner is serving in the Police Department of the State Government. He preferred representation to the respondents seeking correction of his father's name and date of birth in the service record, which was rejected by the Assistant Director General of Police (Works), Police Head Quarters, Bhopal. The petitioner was appointed Constable in the Police Department in 1965. In the service record prepared at the time of enrolment in the service, his date of birth is 1-6-1942 and father's name is Gayadeen. This petition continued till 1990, when he came to know about incorrections as to father's name and date of birth in the service record. Accordingly, he preferred representation, which was rejected. In support of this plea, he depends on fact that he did not sign the service record at the time of entry in service nor he knew the contents thereof, otherwise he would have pointed out that the father's name was not Gayadeen norwas his date of birth 1-6-1942. The correct date of birth as per petitioner is reflected in the school leaving certificate (Annexure P-4) dated 6-6-1990 being 30-6-1945. The respondents submit that the service record was filled up on the instructions of maternal grand father accompanying the petitioner at the time of enrolment. It is signed/thumb marked by the petitioner, therefore, he cannot resile from what he had accepted at the time of enrolment in service. Another submission is that the petitioner has been shown to be 23 years old as on 27-9-1965, when he was subjected to medical test at the time of enrolment. With this background, the petitioner knew that his date of birth was 1-6-1942 and asking for correction after two decades was not justified. Reference to Rule 84 of the M. P. Financial Code is made and it is submitted that date of birth written in the service record is treated conclusive and correction of clerical mistake is permissible, if required. These submissions are accepted by the Tribunal and case of the petitioner for correction of date of birth in the service record has been rejected, though entry with regard to his father's name is liable to be corrected by the Superintendent of Police concerned.

(3.) WE have considered the whole matter carefully. Shri K. K. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the action of the respondents in not making correction in the service record of the petitioner as to his father's name and his date of birth, is unreasonable and arbitrary. The petitioner filed representation seeking these corrections immediately after coming to know about the same. This happened when he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable. The petitioner supported the claim on the basis of documentary evidence, which clearly points out that the correction sought was absolutely genuine and justified and the defence taken by the respondents has no merit.