Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16664 (HP)

Lalita Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-03-05

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Notice. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to forthwith correct the date of birth of the petitioner in her matriculation certificate (through the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education) and consequently in her service records/book from 01.03.1968 to the correct date of birth i.e. 10.03.1969, on the basis of the Birth Certificate (Annexure P-1) and other supporting documents (Annexure P-2 colly.). b) b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service as Junior Basic Teacher till she attains the age of superannuation i.e. till March, 2027 (on the basis of corrected date of birth 10.03.1969) along with all consequential service benefits including salary, increments, allowances and pensionary benefits.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Voluntary Teacher on 03.03.1992 at Government Primary School, Mangarh, Center School GPS Mangarh, Education Block, Sarahan. Her services were regularized as a Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) w.e.f. 01.08.1998 and she continued to serve as such. It is further her contention that on account of a bonafide mistake committed by her parents, her date of birth was recorded as 01.03.1968 in the school record, whereas her actual date of birth is 10.03.1969. According to the petitioner, after she came to know of this error, she filed an application for correction of the same, in terms of Annexure P-2 and as needful has not been done, therefore, she has approached this Court with the prayers mentioned hereinabove. 4. This Court is of the considered view that the present petition is not maintainable and infact is an abuse of the process of law, for more than one reasons. 4. This Court is of the considered view that the present petition is not maintainable and infact is an abuse of the process of law, for more than one reasons. The petitioner, on the strength of the first prayer being made in the writ petition, wants a mandamus to be issued to the Himachyal Pradesh Board of School Education to rectify her date of birth in its record and on the strength thereof, the petitioner further wants a mandamus to be issued to the employer of the petitioner to correct the date of birth in the service record and allow her to continue to serve as a Junior Basic Teacher on the strength of her corrected date of birth. 5. The petitioner, though was appointed as a Voluntary Teacher on 03.03.1992 and her services were regularized w.e.f. 01.08.1998, there is not even a whisper in the writ petition as to why she did not take steps for rectification of her purported wrong entry qua the date of birth either with Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education or the employer, either in the year 1992 or in the year 1998. The very fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Voluntary Teacher and later on her services were regularized as a Junior Basic Teacher demonstrates that she is an educated lady. It is not as if she is a rustic uneducated villager, who was not aware of the nuances of law. Annexure P-2 demonstrates that said request was made somewhere in August, 2025 at the fag end of the service of the petitioner as she is to superannuate within an year. 6. It is settled law that request for the change in date of birth has to be made at the earliest as from the date when a person joins the service. In terms of Chapter-VII of the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971, Volume-I, which deals with date of birth, the declaration of age at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government service, shall as against the Government servant in question, be deemed to be conclusive unless he applies for correction of his age as recorded within 2 years from the date of his entry into Government service. Relevant Clause is quoted hereinbelow:- “7.1 Note 1 (d) (1) In regard to the date of birth a declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government service, shall as against the Government servant in question, be deemed to be conclusive unless he applies for correction of his age as recorded within 2 years from the date of his entry into Government service. Government, however, reserves the right to make a correction in the recorded age of the Government servant at any time against the interest of that Government servant when it is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book or in the history of services of a gazetted Government servant is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded with the object that the Government servant may derive some unfair advantage therefrom.” 7. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioner did not approach the Authority for correction of the date of birth within two years from the date of entering into Government service, be it on voluntary basis or after regularization. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the averments made in the writ petition and it reiterates that there is not even a whisper in the pleadings as to why the appropriate applications were not made for correction of date of birth either in the year 1992 or in the year 1998, nor there is any satisfactory explanation from which it can be inferred that it is only now the petitioner came to know of wrong entry in the matriculation certificate of her date of birth. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Karnataka rural Infrastructure Development Limited Versus T.P. Nataraja and Others a/w connected matter, (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases 27, has been pleased to reiterate the law on this issue by holding as under in Para-11 thereof:- “11. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Karnataka rural Infrastructure Development Limited Versus T.P. Nataraja and Others a/w connected matter, (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases 27, has been pleased to reiterate the law on this issue by holding as under in Para-11 thereof:- “11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarised as under: (i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also more particularly when it is made at the fag-end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.” 10. This Court would like to stress that the entry in the service record of the petitioner with the employer is on the basis of the holding-out of the petitioner herself. It is not her case that wrong date of birth was entered in her service by the Department and therefore also, as the petitioner did not approach the Authority within the time provided in Chapter-VII of the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971, Volume-I, the present petition being not maintainable and is being an abuse of the process of law, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of.