Judgment:
1. The short question that arises in this case is whether the applicant, who was selected and appointed to IPS under the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, is entitled to change his date of birth as declared by him in the application for recruitment to the service.
The applicant, after his selection to the IPS, was sent to the training at Sardar Vallabhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad on 20.12.1979. His date of birth, as declared by him in his application form for recruitment to the service, was 21.2.1953.
Before joining the training, he filed O.S. No. 386 of 1979 before the Principal District Munsiff, Eluru, for correction of date of birth to 30.4.1954. It decreed the Suit on 27.9.1979 directing the Andhra University to correct his date of birth. The University, accordingly corrected the Certificate of Matriculation as also the records of the University. Thereupon he made a representation on 21.12.1979 to the Academy for alteration of his date of birth enclosing the corrected date of birth in the original Matriculation Certificate made by the Andhra University. The Ministry of Home Affairs in its Proceedings dated 29.6.1981 required to state the circumstances under which he filed the suit for change of date of birth and he was also required to submit 'substantial and corroborating evidence' to change his date of birth. The applicant accordingly submitted a representation on 4.11.1981, which was forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs in which he enclosed the copies of the Certificates of date of births of his immediate elder and younger sisters issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Eluru Municipality and also the Certificates issued by the School authorities. In reply to the above, the applicant received the impugned memo dated 28.7.1999 after a long lapse of time from the Ministry stating that the Ministry had already rejected the request of change of date of birth in its Order dated 7.10.1993. In the said order the copy of the proceedings dated 7.10.1993 was enclosed where it was stated that his request has been considered under the provisions of Rule 16-A of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958 as amended in 1978 (hereinafter called "the Rules"), but it could not be established that there was any bonafide or clerical mistake was committed in accepting his date of birth.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant Sri J.V. Suryanarayana submits that as per the authenticated Certificate issued by the Ministry of Births and Deaths, the applicant's real date of birth was 30.4.1954, which he came to know even before he entered into the service, and immediately he filed a suit and obtained a Decree for correcting his date of birth and the University also made suitable corrections in their records and hence that there was no reason to reject his claim for correction of date of birth. It is also submitted that at the first available time without any delay the applicant sought the correction of date of birth and hence there could be no room for suspicion as regards the claim of the applicant. Thus, it is argued that as there was a genuine mistake on the part of the elders of the applicant in giving the date of birth, it needs, in the interest of justice, necessary correction in the Service Records.
5. It is also contended that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind whether there was any genuine mistake in the declaration of date of birth.
6. The learned Counsel for the Respondents Sri B. Narsimha Sharma, on the other hand submits that under Rule 16-A of AIS (DCRB) Rules, there is no provision for correction of date of birth at all. Under Rule 16-A, unless there is a bonafide mistake on the part of the Government in accepting the date of birth as declared by him in his application made to the competent authority, the date of birth once accepted on the basis of the applicant's declaration cannot be altered under any circumstances. It is further argued that in the instant case there was no such mistake.
7. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel.
8. The material facts in this case are mostly undisputed. The crucial fact to be kept in mind was the declaration of the date of birth in his application to Civil Services Examination, 1978. The date of birth declared by him was 21.2.1953. He says that this date is incorrect, which came to light in 1979 when he obtained the Certificate issued by the Registrar of births and deaths where it is stated that his date of birth was 30.4.1954. The Court decree dated 27.9.1979 also corrected the date of birth as 30.4.1954. The University authorities also made suitable corrections in the educational Certificates. The first respondent in its letter dated 29.6.1981 in response to the representation made by the applicant for correction of date of birth "required to submit the substantial and corroborating evidence to change his date of birth from 21.2.1953 to 30.4.1954." 9. It is stated for the applicant that in response to this letter he made a detailed representation dated 4.11.1981, in which he stated that for the purpose of his marriage he obtained the Certificate from the Registrar of Births and Deaths in 1979 and thereupon he filed the Suit and the consequent corrections made by the University. The learned Counsel therefore argues that as he had supplied the substantial and corroborating evidence in support of his claim for correction of date of birth, as required, the respondents should have effected the change in his date of birth.
The above material, in my view, no doubt supports the case of the applicant as the documents furnished are quite a substantial evidence, which cannot be easily brushed aside.
10. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, however, submits that the Rules do not provide for the change of date of birth when once the date declared in the application for competitive examination was accepted by the Government and when there was no mistake in such acceptance.
"Whereas Shri K.P. Prabhakara Rao, a member of Indian Police Service, borne on the cadre of West Bengal, was appointed to the Indian Police Service on the basis of Civil Services Examination, 1978 conducted by the UPSC. 2. And Whereas the date of birth of Shri K.P. Prabhakara Rao was recorded in service records as 21.2.53, as declared by him in his application form for joining the service and there has been no clerical error in accepting the same.
3. And whereas Shri K.P. Prabhakara Rao made a representation for change of date of birth from 21.2.53 to 30.4.54.
4. And whereas the representation of Shri Rao has been considered under the provision of Rule 16-A of All India Services (DCRB) Rules and if could not be established that a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed in accepting his date of birth.
5. Now, therefore, this Ministry rejects the request of Shri K.P. Prabhakara Rao for change of date of birth as the same is not covered under Rule 16-A of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 and hence the date of birth 21.2.53 as declared by him in his application at the time of joining the service and duly accepted by the Govt. at that time shall continue to be on the service records for all purposes." 12. Though this order dated 7.10.1993, it is stated that it has been communicated to the applicant on 5.8.1999. The stand of the Government appears, as seen from the above order, also accords with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents. It should be stated that there is no dispute that the case of the applicant is governed by Rule 16-A of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958, as amended in 1978, which is reproduced hereunder:-- 16-A Acceptance of date of birth.--(1) For the purpose of determination of the date of superannuation of a member of the service, such date shall be calculated with reference to the date of his birth as accepted by the Central Government under this Rule.
(2) In relation to a person appointed, after the commencement of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Amendment Rules, 1971 to (a) The Indian Administrative Service under Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of Sub-rule (a) of Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954; or (b) The Indian Police Service under Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954; or (c) The Indian Forest Service under Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966; the date of birth as declared by such person in the application for recruitment to the service shall be accepted by the Central Government as the date of birth of such person.
(3) In relation to a person to whom Sub-rule (2) does not apply, the date of birth as recorded in the service-book or other similar official document maintained by the concerned Government shall be accepted by the Central Government, as the date of birth of such person.
(4) The date of birth as accepted by the Central Government shall not be subject to any alteration except where it is established that a clerical mistake has been committed in accepting the date of birth under Sub-rule (2) or (3).
13. There is also no dispute that the Rules as amended in 1978 applies to the case, as the applicant made the application to the examination only in 1978 and more importantly, as per Sub-rule (2), the rule has application to a person appointed after the commencement of the 1971 Rules. A close reading of the rule shows that it mainly deals with the aspect of acceptance of date of birth. The rule itself is titled as 'acceptance of date of birth. Sub-rule (4), deals with the consequence of such acceptance. The unamended Rule 16-A dealt with the 'determination of date of birth' and a reading of its clauses show that there was scope for correction of date of birth provided 'cogent evidence' was furnished. The present provision brought a sea-change which is seen from Sub-rules (2) and (4). The operative expression of Sub-rule (2) reads thus: 'the date of birth as declared by such person in the application shall be accepted by the Central Government'. There appears to be no enquiry was contemplated as to the correctness of such a date. So the date declared by the applicant is the date of his birth.
14. Then, Sub-rule (4) comes into play, the expression therein is 'shall not be subject to any alteration except.... there was a bonafide clerical mistake...... in accepting the date of birth.....' Thus when once the date given in the application was correctly accepted, the dale cannot be altered. The consideration of any mistake, genuine or bonafide, in such a declaration of the date of birth, is entirely alien to the scope of the rule. The only consideration that is within the scope of the rule is whether there occurred any clerical mistake as declared in recording the date in the official records. Hence, no application for the alteration of date of birth would He on the ground that there was a mistake in the declaration of the date of birth.
15. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, as the applicant seeks to alter the date on the ground that there was a genuine mistake in the declaration in his application, it would not fall within the scope of the rule. The applicant therefore cannot maintain his representation.
16. The above rule fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. C. Ramaswamy and Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 647, where it was held that the date of birth could be altered only, if under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 16-A it was established that a bonafide clerical mistake had been committed in accepting the date of birth. The case in hand is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment.
17. Hence, the impugned order passed by the respondents cannot he faulted. 18. The OA therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed, no costs.