AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRITTEN statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 filed in Court. Taken on record. Copy furnished to the counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE controversy which arises in this case is as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner is 11.3.1943 or 11.3.1948. Normally, this Court does not enter into such controversy and leave it to the person claiming a different date of birth to get the same settled from a Civil Court. However, in case there is uncontroverted evidence, which on the face of the record shows a particular date of birth, we see no harm in exercising our jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IT will be apparent from the above that the departmental authorities, on verification, had found that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 11.3.1948. It was further recommended that necessary correction be made in the service book for all purposes. We have also perused the photostat copy of the certificate mentioning the petitioner's date of birth which was attested by the S.D.O. who made entries in the service book. We are of the view that petitioner was not to gain anything if he had not mentioned his date of birth as 11.3.1948. Even by mentioning the date of birth as 11.3.1948, he was not under-age. The petitioner did not stand to gain in any manner by mentioning 11.3.1943 as his date of birth. There seems to be obvious mistake in making entry in the service book.