ROSAILOVI Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State respondents.

(2.) MR . Rosangzuala Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had passed her Class X (HSLC) examination held in the year 1978 under the Mizoram Board of School Education (MBSE). In the High School Leaving Certificate (HSLC) dated 1.3.1979 issued by the MBSE, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 1.3.1960. The petitioner joined into government service as Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) on 1.3.1981 under the Mizoram Police Department and while opening her Service Book, she had declared her date of birth as 1.3.1960. However, the concerned authorities while opening the Service Book of the petitioner had wrongly entered her date of birth as 1.3.1955 instead of 1.3.1960. On coming to know of the discrepancies with regard to her date of birth, the petitioner immediately approached the concerned authorities with regard to wrong entry of her date of birth within one month from the date of opening Service Book. On considering the request made by the petitioner, her date of birth in the Service Book was changed to 1.3.1960 in the year 1981 itself.

(3.) MR . Rosangzuala Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved by the communication dated 13.2.2013, the petitioner had made another representation before the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Home Department expressing her grievances over the decision of the Government in accepting her date of birth as 1.3.1955. The said representation was forwarded to the Government by the Police Headquarter on 11.9.2013. The Government of Mizoram, Home Department again response it by a communication dated 26.9.2013 informing that the re -examination of date of birth of the petitioner was unwarranted in the absence of any new evidence/documents to support her claim for such alteration of date of birth. Again, the Police Headquarter sent another letter for consideration of the case of the petitioner and the Government by communication dated 12.6.2014 informed that the Government of Mizoram has accepted 1.3.1955 as correct date of birth of the petitioner and the request for reviewing the case was rejected. By another communication dated 1.8.2014, the respondent No. 3 was again informed that the decision of the Government conveyed on 12.2.2014 regarding the alteration of date of birth in respect of the petitioner stands. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner had entered service, she had declared her date of birth as 1.3.1960 on the basis of her Matriculate Certificate. However, the authority had inadvertently recorded her date of birth as 1.3.1955. She had therefore sought for correction of her date of birth within 1 (one) month and accordingly, her date of birth was changed to 1.3.1960 basing on her Matriculate Certificate. He also submits that after the issuance of memorandum dated 4.6.2012, the respondents had taken no steps and therefore it was the initiative of the petitioners herself that had brought the change of her date of birth to 1.3.1960 to the notice of the State respondents. He therefore submits that it was only when the petitioner had brought the same to the notice of the State respondents that they had wanted to act in the manner as indicated above without considering the factual position with regard to her case. He submits that the petitioner is not in alteration of date of birth and the fact of the petitioner's Service Book perta.