KARANSINGH HIRABHAI PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is a Senior Account Assistant under the Senior Divisional Finance Manager of the Western Railway at Rajkot. His grievance is that due to illiteracy of his parents, his date of birth was not correctly recorded by the school authorities in the School Leaving Certificate wherein 1.6.1954 was shown as his date of birth. According to the applicant this was done without any documentary evidence, but on the personal information given by the parents who did not know about the date entered as a date of birth in Annexure A -1 School Leaving Certificate. The applicant states that he belongs to Schedule Tribes Community belonging to Dahod District (Earlier Panchmahal District, Godhra) and due to backwardness and ignorance of his parents about the importance of the date of birth, the aforesaid date was happened to be entered in the school records. The applicant was born in the Railway Hospital, Freeland Gunj, Dahod and it was during a conversation he had with his mother and other family members in 2008 that he came to know that his date of birth entered in the school record was incorrect. Thereupon he contacted the Health Inspector Railway Hospital and made inquiry about his date of birth at the Railway Hospital authorities. After verifying the records, Annexure A -2 Birth Certificate dated 27.9.2008 was issued by the authorities concerned which shows that his date of birth is 20.3.1958. Thereafter, the applicant sent Annexure A -3 representation dated 20.7.2010 with a request to correct his date of birth in accordance with Annexure A -2 Birth Certificate. Annexure A -4 reminder dated 10.1.2011 also was sent in this regard. Thereafter by Annexure A -5 letter dated 9.2.2011, the respondent No. 2 informed the applicant that change in his date of birth cannot be considered. Again the applicant sent Annexure A -6 representation dated 17.3.2011. Thereupon the respondent No. 2 sent Annexure A -7 reply dated 6.7.2011 informing that the Competent Authority has not considered his request for changing/correction of date of birth. Again the applicant sent Annexure A -8 representation dated 15/16.9.2011 to the respondent No. 3 to which the impugned communication dated 23.9.2011 (Annexure -A) was received stating that the representation has not been accepted as having no merit. The applicant prays for the following reliefs in this OA:

(2.) THE applicant further states as his case ought to have been considered in the light to the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Diptidevi Dhirajlal Patel v. State of Gujarat,, 25 GLT 150.

(3.) HEAD Mr. G.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.J. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondents. Perused the documents produced.