Armed Forces Tribunal
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Armed Forces Tribunal: Resolving a date of birth related controversy, the Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member (A) stated,

“If we take date of birth recorded in educational certificate of the applicant as correct i.e. 05-07-1992 and date of birth in respect of his younger brother being 20-02-1992 as per service records, one can imagine as to how it could be possible that an elder brother comes to this world later than his younger brother.”

The applicant-son of the deceased had applied for a job in place of his deceased father’s post under ‘Employment Assistance under Indigent Circumstances Scheme’ and the same could not be processed due to mismatch of applicant’s name and date of birth in educational certificates and service records.

The application having certain defects was returned to applicant which he never re-submitted to respondents duly rectified. The raised by the respondent were that there was mismatch in name and date of birth recorded in educational certificates and Personal Occurrence Report maintained by the respondents as per declaration given by father of the applicant. On the basis of educational certificate and service record, it could easily be held that there was forgery with regard to date of birth as applicant being elder was born on 05-07-1992 (as per Educational Certificate) and his younger brother Deepak Kumar was born on 20-02-1992 i.e. prior to birth of his elder brother. The details of the applicant were as follows:

“Educational certificate: Name: Suneel Kumar, DOB: 05-07-1992

Service Records: Name:  Sunil, DOB: 27-03-1990”

The policy letter dated 27-01-2014 with regard to correction of name and change of date of birth in respect of children of Central Govt Employees states that if there is a typographical error while publishing Part II Order/Personal Occurrence Report, it can be corrected by approval of Officer-in-Charge. However, in the instant case names and dates of birth published through Personal Occurrence Report were entirely different to that of educational certificate. The Bench opined,

“The typographical error may be in date or month or year but complete date of birth cannot be totally different which creates a doubt in mind that there is other motive for change in complete date of birth.”

The Supreme Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411, had held that, “while spelling in name can be corrected being a typographical error, date of birth as entered in service register of an employee cannot be changed at the fag end of the service even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right.”

The Tribunal observed that,

“It has become a trend that parents are getting recorded lesser age of their children in school certificates than the actual age to get undue advantage of age. When the children grow up, they try to get it corrected either by submitting applications or by approaching before the court. In this regard, we are of the opinion that correct date of birth is that which is declared by parents and notified by Part II Orders/Personal Occurrence Report published as per declaration made by parents.”

In view of the above, the Bench declined to interfere in the matter of correction in date of birth in respect of applicant. However, the Air Force authorities were directed to make correction of name in respect of applicant by changing it from “Sunil” to “Suneel Kumar”. Similarly, the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. was directed to make correction in date of birth in respect of applicant and change it to 1990.

Applicant is directed to submit corrected application to Air Force authorities for processing. Respondent authorities (Air Force) are directed to consider his application on merit. [Suneel Kumar v. Union of India, Original Application No. 135 of 2020, decided on 05-10-2021]


Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearance by:

For the Applicant: Ruby Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Narendra Singh Dhaddha and Mohammad Rafiq, JJ. disposed of a writ petition seeking to correct a bonafide error in an order passed by the present Court.

The present case relates to several writ petitions filed by the petitioners claiming for clarifying/modifying a typographical error present in the operative part of a judgment dated 18-07-2019.

Counsel for the petitioners, Mukesh Kumar Meena submitted that the present court while placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment Pallav Mongia v. Delhi High Court erred in its own direction by stating that only the candidates who have secured more marks than the last candidate originally permitted to appear in the main examination should be allowed to appear in the main examination whereas, the Supreme Court had provided that also the candidates who have secured equal marks shall be permitted to take the mains examination along with candidates securing higher marks.

Senior Advocate A.K. Sharma submitted that the High Court made a bona fide mistake while relying on the aforementioned judgment and omitted the word “equal” inadvertently in its operative part.

The present Bench upon perusal of the order passed dated 18-07-2019, acknowledged the inadvertent mistake committed in the stated order and modified it by including the word equal in the paragraph. The operative part stands modified thus:

“In view of the discussion made above, present writ petitions deserve to partly succeed, only to the extent of Question A/66, B/62, C/55, D/66, with direction to the respondents to delete that question from the question paper booklet and keeping in view the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Pallav Mongia v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court, supra, recompute the marks so as to prepare fresh list of eligible candidates, by including all such candidates therein, who secure equal or more marks than the last candidate, in respective categories, originally allowed to appear in the main examination and apart from originally allowed candidates, also permit the candidates newly included in the eligibility list, to appear in the main examination, for recruitment to Civil Judge Cadre, subject to their securing minimum qualifying marks, on reduced number of questions, as per stipulation in Clause 7 of the advertisement dated 15-11-2018 or as per the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010.” [Hemank Vaishnav v. Rajasthan High Court, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 1872, decided on 30-07-2019]