- (1.) The petitioner seeks for mandamus for correction of date of birth in the records of the respondents. The petitioner's claim is that he had moved an application to the Secretary, Market Committee in the year 1995 giving the proof of the correct date of birth and there had been a recommendation made by the Market Committee on 27.09.1995 for modification of his date of birth. It appears that this was communicated to the Secretary in Punjab Mandi Board in the year 1995 itself but still it has not been corrected and he is due for retirement next year.
(2.) In a situation of correction for date of birth, the issue is never what is the correct date of birth but the issue always is whether such correction is possible under the relevant Rules or the law of limitation allows for such an exercise. It is not as if that a person whose age is less than what is entered in the records shall be taken as wronged and there results any unjustness to his cause. Occasions are not infrequent when a higher age is given at a young age in schools to beat a bar of under-age for admission to school or employment. Such a person, who gains an advantage by a premature admission cannot turn around to say at the fag end of the career that the age must be reduced.
(3.) It must be remembered that a Court that orders the change of date of birth upsets the human resources planning for an employer. The date of retirement has a definite bearing to promotion prospects for a person below him in rank; it has financial implications for the salary outgo for the establishment; seniority positions cannot be in a state of uncertain flux till the last day and there are whole lot of issues to contend for an employer when a last minute change is ordered by Court. The judicial intervention cannot extend beyond what the rules themselves permit. Above all, the issue of law of limitation is not an unjust tool. It is a legislative policy that rewards the ever vigilant suitor that does credit to his cause only if he seeks the remedy at the appropriate time.;