Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a civil second appeal challenging the rejection of a plea for correction of the appellant’s date of birth in government service records. The court held that the request for alteration was barred by statutory rules and that the appellant had failed to establish any valid grounds for modifying the official records. The judgment reaffirmed that changes in date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must comply with established legal and procedural requirements.

The appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant, Ghulam Nabi Sofi, who contended that his actual date of birth was December 31, 1958, but had been incorrectly recorded as January 3, 1953, in his service records. The appellant claimed that his illiterate parents had provided the incorrect date, which he initially believed to be accurate. However, upon reviewing school records of his elder brother and documents maintained by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, he discovered that his correct date of birth was five years later than what was recorded in his service records.

Following this realization, the appellant approached the authorities for rectification of his birth date. He was referred to a medical board for scientific evaluation, which, according to him, confirmed that his birth year was 1958. However, his request for correction was denied by the government authorities. The appellant then filed a writ petition seeking a direction to rectify his date of birth in official records, but the plea was disposed of with a directive to the respondents to consider his grievance. Upon rejection of his request, he initiated civil proceedings, seeking a declaration that his recorded date of birth was incorrect and a mandatory injunction for the government to update his records accordingly.

The state authorities contested the claim, arguing that the suit was barred by limitation and was contrary to service regulations governing alterations of date of birth. It was contended that the appellant had submitted his matriculation certificate at the time of appointment, and his date of birth was recorded based on official school records. The respondents further argued that changes to date of birth cannot be permitted after a period of over twenty years and that any medical board opinion was not binding upon the government.

The trial court framed several issues, including whether the suit was time-barred, whether the recorded date of birth was incorrect, and whether the appellant was entitled to the relief sought. The court treated the limitation issue as a preliminary matter and dismissed the suit on January 1, 2006. The appellant challenged the dismissal, and in an order dated September 10, 2008, the decision was set aside, with a direction to hear the case afresh. The matter was then reconsidered, and the trial court dismissed the suit again, finding no valid grounds for altering the recorded date of birth.

The appellant then preferred a first appeal, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Srinagar. The appellate court examined official records and noted that school discharge certificates showed the appellant had been in Class 10 in 1970. The court found that assuming December 31, 1958, as the correct birth date would imply that the appellant was under 12 years old when in Class 10, which was deemed improbable. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling, concluding that the appellant had failed to provide credible evidence to justify the correction of his date of birth.

In the second appeal before the High Court, the appellant raised various grounds, including alleged misreading of evidence by the lower courts and improper rejection of medical board findings. The appellant argued that official documents confirming his birth year as 1958 were disregarded and that the courts failed to consider procedural fairness in their rulings.

The High Court examined the statutory framework governing date of birth corrections in service records, particularly the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, 1956. The court recorded that "Clause (a) of Rule 35-AA of the Regulations mandates that the date of birth for determining superannuation shall be the one declared at the time of appointment and accepted by the appointing authority based on confirmatory documentary evidence." The provision stipulates that employees with matriculation qualifications must rely on their matriculation certificates as proof of birth date.

The court further noted that "Clause (c) of Rule 35-AA explicitly prohibits any alteration of the recorded date of birth after five years of entry into government service unless a clerical error is demonstrated and the government approves the correction." It was observed that the appellant had served in the government for over two decades before seeking rectification, and there was no evidence that he had raised the issue within the prescribed time limit.

Examining precedents, the court referred to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shib Kumar Dushad (2000) 8 SCC 696 and Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy (1997) 4 SCC 647, which affirmed that requests for correction of date of birth must be made promptly and cannot be entertained at a later stage solely for service benefits. The court recorded that "a person applying for government employment cannot subsequently claim ignorance of the credentials submitted at the time of appointment and seek changes after decades of service."

The court also addressed the appellant’s reliance on the medical board’s findings, stating that "medical board reports cannot override statutory provisions governing date of birth records, particularly when the individual’s birth date was recorded based on documentary evidence submitted at the time of appointment." The court noted that the appellant had signed his service records, affirming his date of birth as January 3, 1953, at the time of entry into service.

The High Court issued the following directives:

• The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.

• No modification in the appellant’s date of birth shall be made in service records.

• The decrees of the trial court and appellate court are upheld.

• The case record is to be sent back to the trial and appellate courts for record-keeping purposes.

Concluding its judgment, the court recorded that "impugned judgments are lucid, comprehensive, and do not call for any interference, inasmuch as there is no substance, much less material or cogent, in the instant appeal, and as such, it warrants dismissal for all that has been said hereinabove."

Case Title: Ghulam Nabi Sofi v. State of J&K & Ors.
Case Number: CSA No. 08/2014
Bench: Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul

[Read/Download order]