1996 (4) TMI 499 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to alter date of birth in service records.
2. Applicability of Rule 16A of the All India Services (DCRB) Rules.
3. Interpretation of Rule 16A (1971 and 1978 versions).
4. Principle of estoppel in altering date of birth.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Alter Date of Birth in Service Records:
The respondent sought to alter his date of birth from 17th June, 1939 to 15th June, 1941 in his service records. His initial date of birth was recorded based on the senior school leaving certificate and his application for the civil services examination. Nearly fourteen years after joining the service, the respondent submitted a representation to the Andhra Pradesh state government, claiming a discovery from his horoscope and birth records that indicated a different date of birth. The state government rejected his request, and subsequent representations to the central government also met with rejection. The respondent then filed a suit for mandatory injunction to alter his date of birth in the SSLC book, which was decreed in his favor by the District Munsif court. However, the central government rejected his request again, and the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the government to determine his date of birth afresh.

2. Applicability of Rule 16A of the All India Services (DCRB) Rules:
The Tribunal's decision was based on Rule 16A, which had been amended in 1978. The government contended that the date of birth recorded in the service book had to be accepted as final and correct as per the amended Rule 16A. The Tribunal, however, concluded that sub-rules (4) and (5) of the 1971 Amendment Rules continued to apply to pre-1971 recruits and directed the government to determine the respondent's date of birth after giving him an opportunity to present necessary material.

3. Interpretation of Rule 16A (1971 and 1978 Versions):
The Supreme Court analyzed both versions of Rule 16A. The 1971 Rule required a specific determination of the date of birth after giving the officer an opportunity to be heard. The 1978 Rule, however, mandated that the date of birth as recorded in the service book or declared in the recruitment application be accepted by the central government. The Court held that the 1978 Rule applied to all members of the All India Services, including pre-1971 recruits. The Court emphasized that the date of birth recorded in the service book or declared in the recruitment application must be accepted, with alterations allowed only in cases of bona fide clerical mistakes.

4. Principle of Estoppel in Altering Date of Birth:
The respondent argued that the principle of estoppel did not apply to changes in the date of birth, relying on a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that in matters of public service, the principle of estoppel would apply if a candidate had represented a particular date of birth to gain an advantage at the time of entry into service. The Court noted that altering the date of birth to extend service tenure would be against public policy and that the authorities were justified in declining such requests even if the original date of birth was incorrect.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the respondent's date of birth as recorded in his service book (17th June, 1939) would remain unaltered. The Court emphasized that Rule 16A, as amended in 1978, applied to all members of the All India Services, and the date of birth recorded in the service book or declared in the recruitment application must be accepted unless a bona fide clerical mistake was established. The principle of estoppel was applicable in such cases to prevent changes in the date of birth that could extend service tenure.