NOOR ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOOR Ali joined J&K Police Force as Constable on 13th of May 1964 and during the period todate rose to the rank of Inspector of Police. Petitioners case is that his date of birth is 23rd of February 1946. However, the respondents changed his date of birth from 22.3.1946 to 25.3.1944 and then to 25.3.41 without giving him any opportunity to rebut the same. While he was posted as Sub inspector in the Crime Branch in 1995, he came to know that he is superannuating in March 1999. He made enquiry from Home Department and came across a Govt. order No. Home -237 (Police) of 1983 dated: 9.5.1983, whereby the Government sanctioned adoption of 25.3.1941 as his date of birth instead of 25.3.1944, pursuant to Rule 6 -4 of J&K Financial Code. The petitioner was to retire ending March 2004. Petitioner agitated the matter with authorities of the department. Dy. S. P Crimes Srinagar under orders of D. G. P J&K respondent No.2 is conducting an enquiry and has recommended that the actual and accepted date of birth of the petitioner is 25.3.1941 and regarding manipulation and forgery of figures in date of birth of petitioner in his character roll, the enquiry is still on. The said Dy. S. P. Crimes examined the record, collected petitioners school leaving certificate and other material and confirmed his date of birth as 25.3 1941 as adopted vide Government order way back in 1983. The Government order of 1983 which has been passed in May 1983 came to the petitioners knowledge only in 1995 and his date of birth was changed without effording him any opportunity. Enquiry conducted by the Dy. S. P was at his back without giving him any opportunity to place the case before Inquiry Officer. As per School Leaving Certificate which the petitioner has obtained from Govt. High School Bagdang (Nobra), his date of birth is given as 22.3.1946. Petitioners date of birth could not have been changed unilaterally to his disadvantage. The rules providing for entry of date of birth in service records of petitioner have not been kept in view while effecting the change in date of birth entry in his service records. The petitioner is seeking quashment of the Government order of May 1983 (annexure -D), the sanction of Government to the adoption of 25.3.1941 as date of birth of petitioner instead of 25.3.1944. Besides he is seeking mandamus against respondents to superannuate him on the basis of 22.3.1946 as his date of birth entry after declaration of his date of birth so and for compensation.

(2.) RESPONDENTS have filed reply. Petitioners joining the Police Department as Constable in May 1964 and rising to the rank of Inspector in 1980 is admitted. However, it is countered that the petitioners date of birth is recorded as 25,3.46 in his service records, it is averred that the entry regarding date of birth of the petitioner in his character roll is forged and manipulated after erasure, in the character roll petitioners date of birth figures at three places. However, all these entries are interpolated and forged as 22.3.46, 25.3.44 and 25.3.41. At the initial entry in service petitioners date of birth as entered in his service record is 25.3.41. As this date of birth was erased and re -written as 25.3.44 in his service records, the Government issued the above order in 1983, giving sanction for adoption of 25.3.41, the actual date of birth of petitioner, in his service records. The enquiry by the respondents/Police Department preceded the above Govt. sanction order of 1983 and infact this order is the end result of such enquiry. The character roll of petitioner, who served in various wings of police department, has remained with different agencies/wings of police department and the responsibility is being fixed and matter investigated as to the actual forgerer and manipulator of the entry. But all the same the needle of suspicion points to the petitioner who alone is the beneficiary of a change in his date of birth. The matter is still under enquiry, though the enquiry officer, Dy. S. P. Crime has reported that the date of birth of petitioner adopted as 25.3.41 and sanctioned by the Government in 1983, is actual date of birth of petitioner as recorded in his service records. The whole exercise is undertaken by petitioner to get the benefit of extension in age and to continue in service beyond March1999, when the petitioner is retiring. It is further alleged that the petitioner despite being served the order of 1983 (annexure -D) through his immediate officer on 3.7.1983, when he was serving in CID department choose not to challenge the order till August 1998, when only a few months were left in his service. Even if petitioners claim is accepted that he acquired knowledge about the said order of 1983 only in 1995, still he took no action for three years till this petition was filed. Petitioner cannot claim extension of age at the fag end his service by restoring to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Seeking correctness in the date of birth entry in his service records recorded over three decades ago at the initial entry in service, is motivated with sole purpose of getting undue extension in service span. There is unreasonable delay in seeking change of date of birth which by itself is sufficient to reject the petitioners case.

(3.) IT is further contended that the case of taken on its face, is based on disputed facts. The date of birth claimed by the petitioner is disputed by the otherside and even the record indicates it otherwise. The forgery and manipulation of date of birth in character roll though admitted, is contested on either side. The contention regarding specific date of birth as alleged by the petitioner is a matter of evidence and proof. Therefore, in these circumstances the writ Court is not the Forum for seeking redressal for declaration and correction of date of birth. The petitioners case is not merited even on this count.