JUDGMENT R. B. Misra, J.
1. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the order dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Executive Engineer/respondent No. 4 communicating the petitioner's retirement after completing the age of 58 years, i.e., age of superannuation on 31.12.1997 by taking the date of birth 1.1.1940 of the petitioner as entered Into service book.
2. Heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner was not High School pass, however, he was appointed to the post of Pump Attendant on 30.9.1961 and on the basis of his physical examination made by the Chief Medical Officer the age of the petitioner on 8.10.1961 was estimated 21 years. On the basis of that certificate the entry of 1.1.1940 originally entered into service book, verified by the petitioner and competent authority, was erased and 8.10.1940 was recorded into service book. It appears through departmental examination the petitioner was promoted on 8.10.1976 to the post of Junior Engineer and was confirmed on 28.8.1990 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1981. In an application for withdrawal of amount of Rs. 30,000 endorsement was shown indicating joining time of petitioner as 8.10.1961 and retirement date as 31.10.1998. The same were said to be acknowledged by the Executive Engineer on 8.2.1993 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The petitioner by an application on 15.1.1993 wanted some correction of entries recorded in the service book, on that basis letters dated 24.8.1993, 29.1.1994 and 25.4.1994 were written by the General Manager to the Chief Engineer, Electricity Board, seeking clarification about acknowledging what date of birth of the petitioner after cutting 1.1.1940 the original date of birth, entered in the service book, against 8.10.1940 mentioned as per medical certificate. According to the petitioner by letter dated 10th June, 1994 issued from the office of the Executive Engineer, petitioner's date of birth was acknowledged as 8.10.1940, and in respect of medical correspondence made between two Executive Engineers on 3.7.1995 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) and on the withdrawal form dated 3.5.1996 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) for taking Rs. 70,000 from the provident fund and letter dated 21st November, 1997 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) from General Manager, Obra to Superintending Engineer, letter dated 5.12.1997 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) from Executive Engineer to General Manager, in the list of employees being superannuated (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) the petitioner's date of birth is Indicated as 8.10.1940 and his date of retirement as 31.10.1998. On the basis of these documents, and Inter-departmental correspondences and in view of the reports acknowledged by superior officers while withdrawing the fund or some amount, the date of birth entered into service book and date of retirement mentioned in those records are claimed to be basis being the true date of birth of the petitioner as 8.10.1940.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed, according to which the date of birth of petitioner is 1.1.1940 only, as disclosed by the petitioner voluntarily at his freewill, as entered in the service book, as after about more than 32 years, the petitioner wanted to verify the correction of date of birth, which was made by cutting the original entry as 1.1.1940 in the service book on the basis of medical certificate. According to the respondents it disputed and is not known at what stage this interpolation was made. According to the respondents, if fact, 1.1.1940 (as the date of birth of the petitioner) was recorded almost everywhere in every relevant documents. When a letter dated 17.1.1989 from Superintending Engineer addressed to the Deputy General Manager (Annexure-C.A.-1 to the counter-affidavit), letter dated 18.11.1989 (Annexure-C.A.-2 to the counter-affidavit) from Superintending Engineer to General Manager, Obra Thermal Power Station and letter dated 31st July, 1990 from Superintending Engineer to General Manager enclosing the list of all the employees/officials a Notice No. 742 dated 31.12.1997 (Annexures-C.A.-4 and C.A.-5 respectively to the counter-affidavit) indicated the date of retirement of the petitioner as 31.12.1997 and after sanction of Chief Engineer the date of birth of the petitioner was acknowledged, as 1.1.1940. According to the respondents it is pertinent to note that in Annexure-C.A.-8 to the counter-affidavit the petitioner himself had submitted confidential assessment of his promotion and has made entries in his own handwriting about the confidential assessment of his performance for the period from 1.5.1984 to 15.9.1984, 16.9.1984 to 31.3.1985, 24.9.1985 to 31.3.1986, 1.4.1986 to 31.3.1987, 24.6.1987 to 31.3.1988, 1.4.1988 to 30.6.1988, 1,7.1988 to 28.2.1989, 1.3.1989 to 31.3.1989, where in all the forms date of birth as 1.1.1940 was mentioned by the petitioner.
5. In the rejoinder-affidavit the petitioner has also referred some inter-departmental correspondences, where directly or indirectly the date of birth of the petitioner 8.10.1940 was endeavoured to have been mentioned. According to the petitioner behind the back of the petitioner without affording proper opportunity of hearing and without relying on the medical report dated 8.10.1961 and without taking into consideration the different entries made in the interdepartmental correspondences showing the date of birth of the petitioner as 8.10.1940 and without resolving the controversy and dispute of date of birth the petitioner was retired from service. As contended on behalf of the petitioner the impugned order was passed without observing principles of natural justice and provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and as such, is arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, the same is not legally sustainable.
6. In Bimlesh Sharma v. Electricity Board, Office of Chief Engineer. U. P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad, Moradabad and Ors., 2002 (4) AWC 2818 : (2003) 1 UPLBEC 280, where date of birth entered in the service book was to be changed by the wife of the deceased employee when the husband of the writ petitioner had died after retirement by disputing the change of date of birth. This Court has held disputed question of fact cannot be investigated in the writ petition and the date of birth once entered in the service book of the petitioner under U. P. Recruitment to Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, was treated to be correct supported by the relevant documents and supporting entries in the service book and the change of the date of birth disputing the same on the basis of fitness certificate were not treated to be relevant proof of age and such controversy and disputed question of fact could not be resolved by investigating the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the parties concerned in the writ proceedings.
7. In the case of Adhishashi Abhiyanta, Electricity Board, Rihand and Hydel Civil Division, U. P. State Electricity Board, Allahabad and Anr. v. Shitla Prasad and Anr., Special Appeal No. 383 of 1989, decided on 17.9.1993, a Division Bench of this Court has held that :
"........... In our opinion, the medical fitness certificate dated 25.7.1974 could not be treated an opinion of the doctor regarding the age of the petitioner. The certificate has been given in the proforma prescribed under Fundamental Rules 10. The doctor had examined the petitioner in order to ascertain as to whether he suffered from any communicable disease or otherwise and whether he had any constitutional weakness or bodily infirmity which would constitute disqualification for employment in the Hydel department. The doctor was not asked or required to give an opinion regarding the age of the petitioner. There are well known scientific methods to ascertain the age of a person and ossification of bone gives a fairly accurate idea regarding the age. However, for this purpose X-ray examination has to be performed in case of doctor had been asked to give his opinion regarding the age of the petitioner he would have performed necessary tests including X-ray examination, etc. and would have also given the scientific date oh the basis of which he would have formed his opinion about the age. The doctor while giving opinion about the age of a person is if the ....... Nature of an expert and in absence of necessary scientific date ......... weight in view of Section 45 of Evidence Act. We are clearly of the opinion that the medical fitness certificate dated 25.7.1994, could not at all be treated as an opinion of the doctor regarding the age of the petitioner. As a consequence the said document could not be used for the purpose of determining his age."
8. In the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar, AIR 1995 SC 1499 : 1995 (4) SCC 172, it was held that the employee of a public sector undertaking whose date of birth was entered in service book and leave record on the basis of the voluntary declaration made by the employee at the time of appointment and authenticated by him was never objected to up to the fag end of service, thereafter he sought for correction of date of birth about two years before his superannuation, when his prayer was refused, he moved the High Court in the writ petition, where relief was granted in his favour, however, the Supreme Court in appeal by special leave has held that ordinarily the High Court should not exercise its discretionary power in writ jurisdiction and entertain a writ petition filed by an employee of the Government or any instrumentality of State towards the fag end of his service seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his service record or service register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the consequential period of retirement.
9. The Supreme Court has pointed out when an employer of the Government or its instrumentality who remained in service for over decades, with no objection whatsoever raised as to his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct all of a sudden comes forward towards the fag-end of his service career with writ petition before the High Court seeking correction of date of birth in his service record, the very conduct of not raising any objection in the matter by the employee for long should be a sufficient reason for the High Court not to entertain such application on the ground of acquiescence, undue delay and latches.
10. In the case of State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ramnath Patnaik, AIR 1997 SC 2452, the Supreme Court has observed in para 4 : "When entry was made in service record and when he was in service, he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected, therefore, any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail...." The Supreme Court has held that" an employee cannot be permitted to seek correction of his date of birth after his retirement".
11. In the case of Hindustan Lever Limited v. S. M. Jadhav and Anr., 2001 (4) AWC 2.16 (SC) (NOC) ; 2001 (2) ESC 338 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 1665, the Supreme Court has elaborated its earlier view and held that "an employee cannot be allowed to raise, at the fag end of the career, dispute regarding correction of his date of birth".
12. In the case of General Manager, Bhawani Cooking Coal Limited, West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 696, the Supreme Court has held that "no dispute regarding correction of date of birth shall be permitted to be raised after long time his Joining service unless it is based on some typographical or arithmetical error and the Court refused to interfere in such matter."
13. In the matter of dispute regarding date of birth, the Government may choose one of the suggested date of birth given by the employee if some preliminary inquiry is made to resolve the controversy of the date of birth and Inquiry Officer holds the preliminary Inquiry does not disclose to the person concerned and the decision arrived thereunder was treated to be contrary to the basis of justice and can have no value and shall be treated against the rules of natural justice has to accept one date of birth out of the claims by the employee on the basis of the inquiry report, such inquiry report should be passed on after Informing the person concerned and after taking Into the evidence in support thereof and after providing opportunity to the persons concerned as held in the State of Orissa v. Dr. Miss Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269.
14. In Bhupendra Nath Chatterjee v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 746, it was held that the date of birth recorded in service record is to govern the date of superannuation of the person from service.
15. In the matter of correction of date of birth, an application for that purpose is to be filed, according to the procedure prescribed within the time under rules or if no rule is prescribed, such application should be made within reasonable time. The Supreme Court has held that no interim order on application for correction of the date of birth should be passed by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public service, directing the employee to be continuing in service unless there are cogent and conclusive materials produced by the employee that the date of birth recorded in the service record was not correct. The onus is heavy on the employee to prove the authenticity of the date of birth claimed for, it was, therefore, held that the Court or Tribunal shall be slow in granting such interim relief unless the claim is supported by prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character, as observed in Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Home Department v. R. Kirubakaram, AIR 1993 SC 2647 : 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155.
16. The application for correction of date of birth as recorded in the service book are not permitted to be corrected by inordinate delay as held in Union of India v. Kantilal Hemantram Pandya. (1995) 3 SCC 17 : AIR 1995 SC 1349. The Supreme Court has held that the document which came Into existence subsequent to the entrance in service but while getting the date of birth recorded in the said certificate respondents had not been involved. The Supreme Court considered this issue in Union of India v. Kantilal Hemantram Pandya (supra) and held that Court may not place any reliance on a document or certificate of date of birth which had been brought into existence for the benefit of the pending proceedings as the correctness and genuineness of such a certificate is not free from doubt. In Union of India v. Kantilal Hemantram Pandya (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated a similar view observing as under :
"He allowed the matter to test till he neared the age of superannuation. The respondent slept over his rights to get the date of birth altered for more than thirty years and woke up from his deep slumber on the eve of his retirement only......... State claims and belated applications for alteration of the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of initial entry, made after unexplained and inordinate delay, on the eve of retirement need to be scrutinized carefully and interference made sparingly and with circumspection. The approach has to be cautious and not casual. On facts, the respondent was not entitled to the relief, which the Tribunal granted to him."
17. in another case when long delay was made in seeking the correction of date of birth and the application having been filed beyond the statutory time limit (three years) it was held by the Supreme Court that competent authority may reject such application and the plea of the employee that the alleged mistake was discovered at about the time when he filed the application for date of birth which was about 40 years of the date of joining the service cannot be accepted as correct. (Chief Medical Officer v. Khadeer Khadri, AIR 1995 SC 850 : (1995) 2 SCC 82].
18. In Union of India v. Ram Suia Sharma, 1996 (2) AWC 894 (SC) : (1996) 7 SCC 421, the Supreme Court has again reiterated that the claim for correction of the recorded date of birth made 25 years of joining in the service could not have been entertained by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal's direction allowing such a claim as per se illegal and that due to long delay and latches, such a claim should not have been entertained by the Tribunal.
19. In respect of condition precedent for correction of date of birth the Supreme Court held the employee seeking the correction of the date of birth must show that the recorded date of birth was made due to negligence of some other person or that the same was an obvious clerical error and that where the employee fails to do so, such relief for correction of date of birth should not be granted by the Administrative Tribunal. In that case, the extract from the Birth Register was produced, subsequently to the recording of date of birth on the basis of the school-leaving certificate. The authority refused to correct the date of birth in the service on the basis of such extract. It is held by Supreme Court that in the absence of any material to show that the entry in the school leaving certificate was incorrect, the authority rightly refused to correct the date of birth, moreeo when the extract from the Birth Register even otherwise was found to be doubtful. [Commissioner of Police Bombay v. Bhagaban V. Lahane, AIR 1997 SC 1986]
20. The respondent applied for correction of date of birth before the appointing authority on obtaining a decree from civil court in a civil suit filed by the respondent against the Board/University for correction of his date of birth in the matriculation certificate issued by the Board/University. In that suit Government was not made a party. The question arose if the Government was bound to correct the date of birth in the service record on the basis of the said decree obtained against the Board/University in which the Government was not a party. The Supreme Court has held that as in the suit the Government was not a party, such decree is not binding upon the Government and the Government is not obliged to correct the date of birth on the basis of the said decree. It is also held that at best it is a piece of evidence and the Government has to look into all kinds of evidence for determination in order to decide whether the date of birth should be correct. It is observed that what is the date of birth is undoubtedly a question of fact and so all kinds of evidence can be looked into for such determination and if the Government on consideration of all these facts refused to correct the date of birth, then the order cannot be interfered with by the Court or Tribunal. [Director of Technical Education v. Smt. K. Sitadevi, AIR 1991 SC 308 : 1991 Supp (2) SCC 387].
21. The object of the rule or statutory instructions issued under the provision of Article 309 or orders issued by the Government under Article 162 of the Constitution for the correction of date of birth entered in the service record, is that the Government employee, if he has any grievance, in respect of any error or entry in the date of birth, will have an opportunity, at the earliest to have it corrected. Its object also is that the correction of the date of birth beyond a reasonable time should not be encouraged. Permission to reopen accepted date of birth of an employee, specially on the eve of or shortly before the superannuation of the Government employee would be an impetus to produce fabricated records. [State of T. N. v. T. V, Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302].
22. In reference to the decision of Supreme Court in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (supra) where entry of date of birth noted in the Admit Card of matriculation examination could not be relied upon by the employer to correct the date of birth recorded in the service and leave register of the employee and authenticated by the employee himself it was the date of birth recorded at the time of joining service on the basis of the S.S.L.C. register was challenged by the employee 35 years later and his previous application for correction seven years earlier had already been rejected by the authority and at the belated stage, the only evidence was his oral evidence and the horoscope evidence. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that at the belated stage the horoscope evidence or oral statements cannot be believed. [Collector of Madras v. Rajamamckram, (1995) 2 SCC 98].
23. The date of birth recorded in periodical medical inspection reports can be relied up when the employee challenged the declared date of birth as mentioned in the notice of superannuation as incorrect as the service records were missing. The department pleaded before the Court below that the service record was manipulated and that the service register was removed by the employee in connivance with the Office Superintendent. The employee sought to rely upon the periodical medical reports noting date of birth to uphold his contention that the date of birth mentioned in the notice of superannuation was not correct. It was held that the date of birth recorded in the periodical medical inspection reports are not such reliable piece of evidence to uphold the contention of the employee that the date of birth mentioned in the superannuation notice is incorrect. [Sheo Nandan Singh v. Union of India, (1996) 1 SCC 593].
24. In respect of correction of date of birth after retirement, when claimant retired from the service on 31st December, 1978 and in 1981 he filed a suit against the rejection of his representation for correction of his date of birth for declaration that his correct date of birth is 1st January, 1925 and not 1st January, 1921. The trial court dismissed the suit but the first appellate court decreed the suit and the Orissa High Court has dismissed the second appeal in limine. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the appeal and also the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and restored that the trial court. It was held that when entry was made in the service record and when he was in service, he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail and that the High Court has, therefore, committed the manifest error in refusing to entertain the second appeal. [State of Orissa v. Ramnath Patnaik, AIR 1997 SC 2452 ; (1997) 5 SCC 181].
25. In Ehtesham Ullah Khan v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and Ors., (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1602, this Court (DB) (Hon'ble Dr. B. S. Chauhan and Ghanshyam Dass, JJ.) has held that once the date of birth is recorded in service record, at time of entrance in service, it can be changed only by production of strong documentary evidence showing that it was incorrect. Any document coming into existence subsequent to entrance in service in correctness or genuineness of entry therein is said not free from doubt. In the instant case, petitioner joined service in 1963 and got his date of birth recorded as 17.5.1934, thereafter, he had passed High School Examination in 1965, wherein date of birth was recorded as 17.2,1943. He filed application for change in his date of birth in 1987, i.e., after 19 years of his service on the strength of this High School Certificate, a documentary proof, which by itself was rightly not found reliable, in view of settled law, besides it the fact about its genuineness also became doubtful as parentage of petitioner was found recorded different than that recorded in service record as such the Tribunal, therefore, rightly held to have rejected application.
26. Similarly as held in Rajasthan High Court in R. S. Mehrotra v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 1991 (63) FLR 76, the documents obtained subsequent to the date of joining the service cannot be relied upon for the purpose of correcting the date of birth as it might be very easy for the employee to mention another date in the papers while preparing the other documents, which came into existence subsequently and the Industrial Tribunal should not have accepted the claim of the workman placing reliance on such documents.
27. In Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Sakharam Sitaram Shinde, 1996 (72) FLR 562, the Bombay High Court has taken a similar view observing that the possibilities of fabricating the documents just to support bogus claim of an employee cannot be ruled out in such circumstances.
28. The Rajasthan High Court in Nagar Mahapalika, Bareilly v. Labour Court, Bareilly and Anr., 1995 (71) FLR 950, held that the Industrial Tribunal committed an error in placing reliance on the documents prepared by the employee subsequently.
29. In State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Mohan Lal Sharma, 2003 (1) AWC 568 (SC) ; JT 2002 (10) SC 207. the Supreme Court held that while examining the issue of correction of date of birth the Court must be very slow in accepting the case of applicant if issue has been agitated at a much belated stage and it must examine the pros and cons involved in the case even if not raised by the parties, in the said case, the application for correcting the date of birth was rejected observing, that if it was allowed the applicant had joined the service, when he was below 18 years of age, and, therefore, accepting such application would amount to sanctifying the illegal entrance in service.
30. There is a presumption that official acts are regularly performed though such a presumption can be rebutted by adducing evidence. [Vide Jhaman Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 1965 Raj 86 ; Somasudarshan Goud v. District Collector, Hyderabad and Anr., AIR 1978 AP 420 ; Ganga Ram v. Smt. Phulwati, AIR 1970 All 446 ; Saheed Ahmed v. Syed Qumar Ali and Anr., AIR 1973 Ali 23 ; Gopal Narain v. State of U. P. and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 370 ; Maharaja Pratap Bahadur Singh v. Thakur Man Mohan Dey and Ors., AIR 1966 SC 1931 ; Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1967 SC 856 ; State of Punjab v. Satya Pal Dang and Ors., AIR 1969 SC 903 ; Sone Lal and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1142 ; Municipal Board, Saharanpur v. Imperial Tobacco of India Ltd. and Ors., 1999 (1) AWC 561 (SC) : AIR 1999 SC 264 ; K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 510 ; Kiran Gupta v. State of U. P. and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1142 ; Kiran Gupta v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2000 (4) AWC 3223 (SC) : (2000) 7 SCC 719 ; Superintendent, Narcotics Control Bureau v. R. Paulsamy, (2000) 9 SCC 549 and State Gouernment of N.C.T. of Delhi v. Sunil and Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 652].
31. In Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 1977 SC 183, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that presumption provided in Illustration (e) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is based on well-known maxim of law "omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta" (i.e., all acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done). The Court further held that this presumption is, however, one of the fact. It is an optional presumption and can be displaced by the circumstances, indicating that the power lodged in an authority or official has not been exercised in accordance with law.
32. For rebutting the long standing entry regarding the date of birth of an employee in his service record is a difficult task for the reason that the case of applicant has to be considered in view of the provisions of Sections 35 and 114 of the Evidence Act.
33. In Harpal Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 361 ; Brij Mohan v. P. B. N. Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282 and Ramprasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 326, it has been held by the Supreme Court that unless it is proved that the entries had been recorded in exercise of the official duties by a Government servant, the same cannot be held to be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. In case, it is proved that it got recorded by an illiterate chowkidar or by someone else, or entries had been made without proper checking, the same requires corroboration and cannot be assumed to be correct.
34. In Mohammed Ikram Hussain v. State of U. P., AIR 1964 SC 1625, it was held that the age of the girl mentioned in the School Register at the time of admission was a good evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. School Register was found to be admissible on the ground that these entries were made ante litem mortem.
35. In Vedesh Kumar and Ors. v. Prithvi Singh and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 703, the School Admission Register was held to be made admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Even the age mentioned in Matriculation Certificate by the Education Board was held to be done in accordance with law as required under Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act.
36. School should be a Government one only then it can be held that date of birth had been recorded by a public servant in exercise of his official duty. No such presumption would be there in respect of Admission Register of the private school. Entries therein shall require corroboration. [Vide Rammurti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1970 SC 1029 ; Brij Mohan Singh (supra)].
37. In Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam, AIR 2001 SC 2231, the Supreme Court, while examining the issue regarding admissibility of School Admission Register under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, held that as it was not clear as under what provision of law, the School Register was maintained, the entries made in such a Register cannot be taken as a proof of age of the person concerned for any purpose.
38. Date of Birth, the Secondary School Certificate is not to be taken to be correct unless corroborated by parents--who got the same entries made. [Vide Biradmal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796 and Tara Devi v. Sudesh Choudhary, AIR 1998 Raj 54 (DB)].
39. It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduced sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. [Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 ; Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608 ; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779 ; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rant and Ors., (1999) SCC 141 ; Chitra Kumari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1684], the Supreme Court observed as under :
"The findings, in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law."
40. Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti and Anr. v. Prakash N. Rudrakar and Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18.
41. In State of U. P. and Ors. v. Smt. Gulaichi, 2003 (4) AWC 2774 (SC) : 2003 (3) SCCD 1303 : 2003 AIR SCW 3775 : (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1780, the Supreme Court has held in paras 8 and 9 as below :
"8. Normally, in public service, with entering Into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. But, of late a trend can be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of their retirement raise a dispute about their records, by either Invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or by filing applications before the concerned Administrative Tribunals, on even filing suits for adjudication as to whether the dates of birth recorded were correct or not."
"9. Most of the States have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof Issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth in the service record is to be dealt with and what procedure is to be followed. In many such rules a period has been prescribed within which if any public servant makes any grievance in respect of error in the recording of his date of birth, the application for that purpose can be entertained. The sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades, especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. In the case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka, (1970) 3 SCC 624, this Court said that the date of the compulsory retirement" must in our judgment be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected consistently with the appropriate procedure." in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagreev Sarma, 1990 (2) SCC 682, the A. P. Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 were considered. The public servant concerned had claimed correction of his date of birth with reference to the births and deaths register maintained under the Birlhs, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886.
The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal corrected the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, in view of the entry in the births and deaths register ignoring the rules framed by the State Government referred to above. It was inter alia observed by this Court :
"A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay."
"An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the courts, Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an Important and relevant aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is Issued or declaration made, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases It is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim order, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Courts or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused injustice to this immediate Junior."
45. In general, a disputed question of fact is not investigated in a proceeding under Article 226, particularly where an alternative remedy is available, e.g., the merits of rival claims to property or a disputed question of title ; State of Rqjasthan v. Bhawani, (1993) Supp (1) SCC 306 para 7,
46. The High Court may interfere with a finding of fact, if it is shown that the finding is not supported by any evidence, or that the finding is 'perverse' or based upon a view of facts which could never be reasonably entertained ; Arjun v. Jamnadas, (1990) 1 SCJ 59 paragraph. 15.
47. A finding based on no evidence constitutes an error of law, but an error in appreciation of evidence or in drawing inferences is not, except where It is perverse, that is to say, such a conclusion as no person properly instructed in law could have reached, or it is based on evidence which is legally inadmissible, Board of Wakfs v. Hadi, (1993) Supp 1 SCC 192 paragraph 17.
48. If the conclusion of facts is supported by evidence on record, no interference is called for even though the Court considers that another view is possible, Maharashtra S.B.S.E. v. Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC 716 paragraph 10.
49. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner is not High School pass and the date of birth entered into service book, duly verified by the petitioner and competent authority, is taken as correct date of birth of the petitioner. On the basis of the medical report of estimated age on physical appearance, the date of birth of the petitioner other than what was entered into service book cannot be accepted for the purpose of this case, therefore, the dispute of date of birth of the petitioner being a disputed question of fact cannot be corrected after adjudication in the present writ petition.
50. In view of the aforesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed.