In a recent legal battle of The State of Maharashtra through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others v/s Ghanhasham K. Patil, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's decision to allow the alteration of a police inspector's date of birth has raised important issues regarding the procedures for correcting service records, particularly concerning the limitations on changing such entries and the validity of supporting documents.
The case revolves around the petitioner, the State of Maharashtra, challenging the Tribunal's ruling from August 18, 2022, which permitted a police inspector, who had entered the service in 1995, to alter his recorded date of birth in official records. The respondent, working as a Police Inspector at Nagpada Police Station in Mumbai, initially had his date of birth recorded as June 1, 1965, based on his school leaving certificate. In 2002, he sought a correction, claiming his date of birth was November 22, 1967, as per the birth register. However, after scrutiny, the correction was found to be unjustifiable, and it was subsequently cancelled in 2008.
Despite the cancellation, the respondent continued to assert his birth date as November 22, 1967, referring to a birth register extract and a gazette notification. The State, on the other hand, contested this claim, citing doubts over the authenticity of the documents and the conflict with the original school records. The issue came to a head in 2021 when the respondent filed Original Application No. 490/2021, seeking the restoration of his corrected date of birth.
Key Legal Considerations:
Two significant issues emerged for judicial review: the time limitations for making such requests for change in birth dates, and whether the respondent’s claim was substantiated with credible evidence.
Time Limitation: Rule 38 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, governs the recording and correction of dates of birth in government service records. As per the amended Rule 38, no change in date of birth could be entertained beyond five years from the date of entry into service, which was introduced in 2008. However, the Tribunal concluded that this amendment did not apply retrospectively to the respondent’s case and ruled that there was no statutory bar under the pre-amendment rules.
Merits of the Claim: The crux of the dispute lay in whether the respondent’s date of birth could be altered based on the birth register. The State contended that the school leaving certificate, which indicated a date of birth of June 1, 1965, should take precedence, and any changes in birth date should only be considered if there was irrefutable evidence of an error. The respondent’s claim relied heavily on the extract from the birth register, which was called into question. A letter from the concerned Tahsildar clarified that the original birth register only listed the name "Subhash" and not "Ghanashyam," further casting doubt on the authenticity of the respondent’s argument.
The Court also considered the procedural fairness in light of the fact that the respondent had never attempted to amend the school records or subsequent education documents, where his birth date continued to reflect June 1, 1965. Moreover, his claim that he was unaware of the birth register entry until 1998 was seen as a vague assertion, which lacked concrete evidence to support it.
In response to the respondent’s contention that the entry in the government gazette, based on the birth register, validated his claim, the Court found no merit in this argument. The gazette notification was a self-declaration and did not guarantee the truthfulness of the claimed information. The judgment further pointed out the discrepancies between the birth date, as per the school records and the Primary Education Act, which mandates that children should be at least six years old when entering the first grade of school. The respondent, with a birth date of June 1, 1965, would have been of the proper age when joining the school in 1972, but a birth date of November 22, 1967, would have made him too young for admission at that time.
Conclusion and Legal Implications:
The Tribunal’s decision to allow the change in the respondent’s birth date was ultimately found to be flawed. The Court quashed and set aside the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that such changes in date of birth should not be made lightly, especially when the evidence presented does not conclusively support the claim. The case highlights the importance of maintaining consistency in official records, especially when discrepancies arise late in an employee’s career.
Moreover, the Court underscored that changes in birth dates towards the end of a service career cannot be casually granted, as they may have significant implications for career progression, seniority, and fairness to other employees.
The Court granted the respondent a period of four weeks before any coercive actions could be taken, acknowledging that the respondent intended to challenge the decision in a higher forum.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements and documentary evidence when making alterations to official records, and the legal implications such changes may have on both the individual and the broader public service system.
