N.R. Patel vs State of Gujarat

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Paresh Upadhyay for the Appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. N.J. Shah for the Respondents.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.4.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4470 of 2010, by which the claim of the Appellant for correction of his date of birth, which has been rejected by the Respondent, has been dismissed.

The Appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer by the Respondent on 25.7.1979. At the time of entering into the service, the date of birth was recorded as 1.6.1954 as per the school leaving certificate. The Appellant came to know about the discrepancy in date of birth. On 19.4.1997, he raised his grievance for correction of date of birth. Ultimately, by order dated 22.12.2003, the claim for correction of date of birth was rejected by the authority. The Appellant, thereafter, did not challenge order dated 22.12.2003 and filed a writ petition in the year 2010, after more than six years. The writ petition was dismissed on 12.4.2010 summarily by the learned Single Judge by placing reliance on a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein it has been held that a writ petition should not be filed beyond reasonable period, that is to say, beyond the period of three years, and normally, the Court would reject the writ petition.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the date of birth at the time of entering into the service was recorded on the basis of the school leaving certificate. It was well known to the Appellant as he has signed the service book and other documents. He applied for correction of his date of birth after 20 years of service. Further, when his claim for correction of date of birth was rejected on 22.12.2003, he slept over the matter and after more than six years, he filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Respondent.

It is well settled law that, ''date of birth cannot be corrected at the fag-end of service''. Since the writ petition was filed after more than six years of passing of the impugned order by the Respondent, the Petitioner was guilty of laches. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.