1 2025:CGHC:56011-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 832 of 2025 Jambeshwar Lal Meshram S/o Pyare Lal Meshram Aged About 62 Years Posted As Deputy Jail Superintendent Jail, Distt. Janjgir Champa, C.G., R/o Gram Jepra, Tehsil Charaama, Distt. Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director General Jail (Prisons) And Correctional Services, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Deputy Inspector General Jail (Prisons) And Correctional Services, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.19 13:01:10 +0530 2 Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 18.11.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 5139 of 2023, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “3.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the order dated 01/08/2025 passed in WP(S) No.5139/2023 (ANNNEXURE A/1). 3.2. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider appellant's date of birth as 26/02/1963 in place of 27/02/1962. 3.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/reliefs in favour of the appellants, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the appellant.” 3. The appellant was appointed as Deputy Jail Superintendent on 11.11.1991 and subsequently retired on 29.02.2024 during the pendency of his writ petition. His primary grievance is that his date of birth has been incorrectly recorded as 27.02.1962 in his service 3 book, whereas his actual date of birth is 26.02.1963. The appellant relies upon original school admission records (Dakhil Kharij) of Class 1 and Class 6 from 1968, as well as his Class 10th mark sheet, all of which correctly recorded his date of birth as 26.02.1963. The erroneous entry appears to have originated from a typographical mistake in the Class 9th merit list and was subsequently carry forwarded to his Higher Secondary Certificate of 1981, which formed the basis for the service book entry. The appellant made several representations to authorities, including the Executive Magistrate, the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, and the Director General, Prisons & Correctional Services, seeking correction of the error with supporting documents. However, his request was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General on 12.04.2023 without due consideration of these documents. The appellant contends that due to this clerical error, he was prematurely retired in 2024 instead of 2025, causing him financial loss and denial of consequential service benefits. The appellant preferred the writ petition that too was dismissed by the learned Single Bench, thus this appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 4 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The claim for correction of date of birth in the service records, raised at the fag end of service, suffers from inordinate delay and laches and is not supported by any conclusive or revised official record issued by the competent authority. 10 in the present case, the petitioner has neither produced any legally admissible document overriding the date recorded in his Higher Secondary School Certificate nor shown any justifiable reason for the long delay in approaching this Court. 11. In light of the above-stated factual position, and considering the fact that the petitioner has challenged the recorded date of birth at the verge of retirement, and that disputed questions of fact are involved which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, this Court finds no ground to entertain the petition. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was appointed in government service on 11.11.1991 and has retired as 5 Deputy Jail Superintendent, but his date of birth has been wrongly recorded in the service book as 27.02.1962 instead of the correct date 26.02.1963. It is argued that the appellant’s authentic school records namely the Class I and Class VI Admission Registers (Dakhil Kharij) and the Class X marksheet consistently record his date of birth as 26.02.1963 and constitute reliable contemporaneous evidence. The incorrect date appears to have originated from a typographical mistake in the Class IX merit list, which was inadvertently carried into the Higher Secondary Certificate and later into the service records. The appellant has submitted representations, affidavits, and an application to the Board of Secondary Education seeking correction of this error. It is therefore urged that the mistake in the service book is purely clerical, the claim is genuine and bona fide, and the authorities be directed to correct the date of birth to 26.02.1963 in the interest of justice. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has wrongly dismissed the writ petition and prays that the present appeal be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of the appellant and contends that the date of birth recorded in the service book as 27.02.1962 is based on the Higher Secondary School Certificate of 1981, which was the primary and official document furnished by the appellant at the time of his 6 appointment and, therefore, rightly relied upon by the department. It is submitted that the appellant joined service in 1991 and has raised this objection after more than three decades, suffering from gross delay and laches, with no protest made at any earlier stage. Learned State counsel further submits that entries in school admission registers or the Class X mark sheet cannot supersede the date mentioned in the Higher Secondary Certificate unless the same is duly corrected by the competent Board. At the verge of retirement, such a correction in the date of birth is impermissible in law, and therefore, the claim of the appellant deserves to be rejected at the threshold. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. On a careful consideration of the pleadings, submissions, and record, it is evident that the date of birth of the appellant recorded in the service book as 27.02.1962 is based on the Higher Secondary School Certificate issued in the year 1981, which was the primary and official document produced by the appellant at the time of his appointment. The appellant seeks to correct this entry on the basis of earlier school admission records (Dakhil Kharij) of Class I and Class VI, as well as the Class X marksheet, which record his date of birth as 26.02.1963. However, these documents, while contemporaneous, cannot succeed the official Higher 7 Secondary Certificate unless a competent authority has duly corrected the same. It is also apparent that the appellant joined government service on 11.11.1991 and has approached the Court only at the fag end of his service, after more than three decades, thereby suffering from gross delay and laches. No objection was raised regarding the recorded date of birth either at the time of appointment or during the subsequent years of service. Furthermore, disputed questions of fact, including the authenticity and priority of various educational records, are involved in this matter, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Considering that no revised official document has been issued by the competent authority and that the appellant’s claim is being raised at the verge of retirement, the present appeal cannot be entertained in law. 9. In (1996) 7 SCC 421 (Union of India v. Ram Suia Sharma) a delay of 25 years was considered as inordinate and belated to entertain a claim for correction of the date of birth and the order of the Tribunal allowing the same was set aside. 10. The law that a belated claim of birth should not be entertained has been repeated time and again in judicial precedents. In (2011) 9 SCC 664 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Premlal Shrivas) where also the correction of the date of birth was sought 25 years later it was held as follows:- 8 "12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book." 11. This Court in matter of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v. Sampat Kumar Chauhan after considering the issue at length, concluded that the dispute concerning the Date of Birth cannot be permitted to be raised at the fag end of service career. 12. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from 9 patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti