Abhinav Mishra| Kirit P. Mehta School of Law| 7th June 2020
Case Name: Chintaman Masulkar v. State of M.P and 5 ors.
Introduction
The petitioner has filed a petition under in Madhya Pradesh High court for issuing an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authority to correct his date of birth in the Service record. The bench comprises of U.C. Maheshwari.
Facts
- The petitioner was appointed to post of Patwari in service of Respondent No.1 dated 3/1/1986. In the said appointment the Birthdate provided by the petitioner was 10/4/1952 and the same was mentioned in the mark sheet of his Higher Secondary School Examination(Annex. P3) of 1973.
- This information was recorded in his service book and record. After 25 years of service, the petitioner approached this court near the year 2009 he came to know his real birthdate, through Primary School Education of the year 1966 (P1), and the School leaving certificate(P2), was 5/5/1954. After knowing which he immediately approached the court.
- The District Education officer, Balaghat has conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 16/3/2011 in which the birthdate of the petitioner in the 6th class certificate and mark-sheet was found to be 10/4/1952 while in Admission register the same was 5/5/1954.
Laws and Rules Used
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950.
Rule 84 of the M.P. Finance Code Bill.
Section 115 of the Evidence Act,1872.
Holding
The High court dismissed the petition stating that a person like a petitioner cannot be permitted to change his date of birth in the service record on the eve of his retirement.
Brief Analysis
The HC dismissed the petition arguing that the petitioner was in possession of the P2 issued on 12/10/1988 and no step was taken by the petitioner up to the year of 2009, the eve of his retirement. The Court referred to rule 84 of the M.P Finance Code Bill in which it is said that once the date of birth is recorded In the manner prescribed in Rule 84 it is ‘conclusive’ and the only exception is a clerical error and thus no revision shall be allowed. The court reiterated the Supreme court case M.P. Vs. Premlal Shrivas-AIR 2011 SC 3418 in which dealt with the same Rule 84 of the M.P Finance Code Bill. The court also dismissed the petition arguing that such change would be in violation of the principle of estoppel described in Section 115 of the Evidence Act.
Conclusion
The case’s primary concern is regarding the applicability of Rule 84 of the M.P Finance Code Bill in cases in which there is no clerical mistake. The HC reiterated SC’s Views that the said rule is only applicable in cases of a clerical mistake.
Leave a Reply