Narinder Kaur vs Punjab & Haryana High Court & Ors

at Chandigarh in CWP No.16151 of 2003 by which the

prayer made by the appellant to quash order dated

12.5.2002 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court at

Chandigarh on its administrative side declining the

request made by the appellant for effecting change in

her date of birth from 26.1.1971 to 9.1.1972 is

rejected.

From the record of the case, it is evident that the

appellant was selected to the Haryana Civil Services

(Judicial) and was posted as Civil Judge (Jr. Division)

Ambala City. She joined her duties on 20.5.2000. The

case of the appellant is that her date of birth is

9.1.1972 but it was wrongly mentioned in the records as

26.1.1971, on the basis of factually incorrect birth

certificate wherein her date of birth was shown to be

- 2 -

26.1.1971. The Governor of Haryana in exercise of powers

conferred by clause (2) of Article 283 of the

Constitution made Punjab Financial Volume I (Haryana

First Amendment) Rules, 2001 amending certain provisions

of Punjab Financial Vol.I Rules 2001 providing inter

alia that in regard to the date of birth, a declaration

of age made at the time of, or for the purpose of entry

into Government service, shall as against the Government

employee, be deemed to be conclusive unless he applies

for correction of age as recorded within two years from

date of his entry into Government service and when such

an application is made a special inquiry shall be made

to ascertain correct age by making reference to all

available sources of information such as certified

copies of entries in the municipal birth register,

university or school certificate indicating age, Janam

Patrika, horoscopes etc.

The appellant realising that her date of birth

was wrongly recorded in the birth certificate, as

26.1.1971 made an application dated 12.4.2002 i.e.

within two years from the date of her entry into

Government service, requesting the authority concerned

to change her date of birth from 26.1.1971 to

9.1.1972. By

- 3 -

communicating a non-speaking order dated 12.5.2002, the

appellant was informed by the Registrar of Punjab and

Haryana High Court, Chandigarh that the representation

made by her seeking change in her date of birth was

rejected by the High Court.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed CWP No.16151

of 2003 before the High Court. The High court by the

impugned judgment has dismissed the petition giving rise

to the present appeal.

This Court has heard the learned counsel for

the parties and considered the documents forming part of

the instant appeal.

The main reason assigned by the High Court for

dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant is

that the appellant had failed to show satisfactorily

that she had not taken any advantage of the recorded

date of birth. It was further held by the High Court

that the appellant belonged to a mature class and her

age as declared in the application Form for selection

must have influenced the mind of the Selection Committee

and, therefore, the principle of estoppel would apply to

the facts of the case. The High Court also held that

notification dated 13.8.2001 is discretionary in nature

- 4 -

and the appellant is not entitled to change in her birth

date on the basis of the said notification.

It may be mentioned that the State of Punjab

and Punjab and Haryana High Court had filed reply

affidavit before the High Court. However, no material

was produced on the record of the case to show that the

appellant had taken undue advantage of the recorded date

of birth. The proceedings relating to the selection of

the appellant as Civil Judge never formed part of the

instant case and, therefore, it was preposterous on the

part of the High Court to assume that the learned High

Court Judges who were members of the Selection Committee

while selecting the appellant as Civil Judge (J.D.) must

have been influenced by the age of the appellant as

declared by her in the application form for selection.

The record does not indicate that after receipt of the

application from the appellant regarding change of her

birth date, any inquiry, much less a special inquiry as

contemplated by amended Rules of 2001 was undertaken by

the High Court. It is true that the amended Rules of

2001 are discretionary in nature but that fact by itself

does not justify the High Court on its administrative

side to ignore them altogether and then to come to the

- 5 -

conclusion that on the basis of the discretionary rules,

the appellant is not entitled to claim change in her

date of birth.

In the present appeal, Dr. J. P. Singh,

Director, Health & Family Welfare-cum-Chief Registrar,

Births & Deaths, Punjab has filed an affidavit on

26.8.2010 mentioning that as per the record maintained

by the office of Local Registrar, Births & Deaths,

Municipal Council, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt.

Patiala, Punjab, the entry of the birth of the appellant

is recorded with particulars as Annual Sr. No.10, Date

of Registration 11.1.1972, Date of Birth 9.1.1972. Thus,

the State of Punjab has now admitted in this affidavit

that the correct date of birth of the appellant as per

births and deaths record was 9.1.1972. The contents of

the affidavit filed by Dr. J. P. Singh, Director, Health

& Family Welfare-cum-Chief Registrar, Births & Deaths,

Punjab are not disputed or controverted in any manner by

the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

In view of the presumtive value which attachs

to the birth and death records, this Court is of the

opinion that appeal deserves to be allowed.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds.

The

- 6 -

judgment dated 20.4.2006 rendered by Division Bench of the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.

16151 of 2003, is hereby set aside. CWP No. 16151 of 2003

filed by the appellant in the High Court is allowed.

The order dated 12.5.2002 passed by Punjab and Haryana

High court on its Administrative side rejecting the

application dated 12.4.2002 made by the appellant to the

High Court with a request to change her date of birth

from 26.1.1971 to 9.1.1972 is also set aside. The

application dated 12.4.2002 made by the appellant to

the High Court to change her date of birth from

26.1.1971 to 9.1.1972 stands allowed. Both the

respondents are hereby directed to carry out necessary

changes in service record of the appellant by mentioning

her date of birth to be 9.1.1972. The appeal

accordingly stands disposed of.

.................J. (J.M. PANCHAL)

NEW DELHI .................J. FEBRUARY 4, 2011 (H.L. GOKHALE)