Chandresh Bhushan ORDER
R.B. Dixit, J.
The respondent No. I/petitioner was aggrieved with his order of retirement dated 13-2-92 by which he was treated to be retired w.c.f. 1-6-1988 instead of 31-7-1990.
The applicant was initially appointed as Constable in the Police Department of erstwhile Madhya Bharat State w.e.f. 1-6-1950. The applicant in his service record mentioned that he had the qualification of Middle Class. It was alleged that at the time of completion of service-roll without asking him to produce a certificate of Middle Examination, he was compelled to write an imaginary date of birth (1-6-1930) and was asked to sign the service roll.
Although, a departmental enquiry was started against him for changing his date of birth in service record, however, the order of retiring him from service was passed. The learned State Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order observed that the order of retirement was passed without affording applicant any proper opportunity of hearing and consequently the order of his retirement was quashed against which the present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the State.
It is not disputed that at the time of entry into service, the date of birth whether imaginary or otherwise was recorded as 1-6-1930 and the so calted change in the date of birth has been madeshowing it as 4-7-1932. Taking into account the original date of birth as mentioned, i.e., 1-6-1930, the age of the applicant at the time of entry into service is found to be 20 years, but in case of change in date of birth, it would be less than 18 years and thus he would not have been entitled to enter into service also.
Rule 84 of M.P. Financial Code (Volume I) provides that date of birth once recorded must be deemed to be absolutely conclusive and except in the case of a clerical error no revision of such a declaration shall be allowed to be made at a later period for any purpose whatsoever.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy and Ors., reported in MANU/SC/0492/1997 : (1997) 4 SCC 647, has made it clear that bona fide clerical error would normally be one where an officer has indicated a particular date of birth in his application form or any other document at the time of his employment but, by mistake or oversight a different date has been recorded. However, in the present case, it is nobody's case that any such bona fide clerical error has occurred in the service record.
However, it would be noticed that in the present case, the respondent had taken benefit of the said imaginary date of birth, i.e., 1 -6-1930 by getting recruited as Constable. The subsequent change in the date of birth was therefore wrong because that was against the public policy. The Hon. Apex Court in the case of Union of India (supra) had observed that-
"In matters relating to appointment to service various factors are taken into consideration before making a selection or an appointment. One of the relevant circumstances is the age of the person who is sought to be appointed. It may not be possible to conclusively prove that an advantage had been gained by representing a date of birth which is different than that which is later sought to be inoperatcd. But it will not be unreasonable to presume that when a candidate, at the first instance, communicates a particular date of birth there is obviously his intention that his age calculated on the basis of that date of birth should be taken into consideration by the appointing authority for adjudging his suitability for a responsible office. ........