B.L. Yadav, K.K. Birla, J. - (1.) The petitioner is Head Master in Basic Primary Pathshala, Lala Bazar, Fatehpur since July, 1981. According to his case, his date of birth was 7th August, 1930. But there appears to be some erasure in the admission form of the petitioner of the Municipal Junior High School, Lala Bazar, Fatehpur and his date of birth appears to be amended as 20th September, 1927 (vide Annexure-3 to the petition) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 1948 and in the service record his date of birth was shown as 20th September, 1927 and not 7th August, 1930. The petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 4, Education Superintendent, City Area, Fatehpur for the correction of his date of birth. On 28-1-1984 the said representation of the petitioner has been dismissed (Annexured-10 to the petition) with the observation that as the petitioner was taken in service in 1948, hence the date of birth cannot be corrected after such a long period. Further the date of birth of the petitioner was verified by the Executive Officer. Similarly the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari has also passed an order on the representation of the petitioner that the dale of birth once entered in the service book cannot be corrected. This appears to be the order, dated 27-12-1983. Thereafter the petitioner sent reminders about the correction of his date of birth, (reminders, dated 21-1-1986, 10-4-1986 and 6-10-1986 Annexures-11, 12 and 13 to the petition).
(2.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation made by him. The other relief is that the respondents may be directed to correct wrong entry of the date of birth in service record as 20th September, 1927. Reliance was placed on a decision in S.S.L. Srivastava v. Union of India and others, 1988 (1) UPLBLC (Trib) 49, (Central Administrative Tribunal) and Jagannath Sharma v. Union of India and others, 1987 (1) SLR 410, (Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh) and on Dr. Smt. Beenapai Dei v. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1269.
(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner we are of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and no direction can be issued directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. The date of birth once entered in service record becomes final. The petitioner was taken in service in 1943 about 40 years back. Since than the petitioner being an educated person used to see his service record and he could have taken steps on for correction at any time immediately thereafter. But he did not do so, rather be felt satisfied. Further correction of date of birth means passing an order as provided under relevant service rules. The Government or any local body, i.e., Municipal Board, provides employment to any Assistant Teacher or other employee with the understanding that he would enter his date of birth and that is shown in the application form and the same date of birth is taken in the service book also. In case there is any rule that the date of birth can be corrected only then the same can be corrected In the relevant rules pertaining to Assistant Teachers or H ad Master of Basic Schools of the Municipal Board or otherwise, no provision has been shown by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the date of birth can be corrected.;