AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img






Cheif Medical Officer Vs. Khadeer Khadri [1995] INSC 32 (10 January 1995)

Ramaswamy, K. Ramaswamy, K. Manohar Sujata V. (J)

CITATION: 1995 AIR 850 1995 SCC (2) 82 JT 1995 (1) 453 1995 SCALE (1)191

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Admittedly, the respondent joined the service on 15-11- 1951, and had given his date of birth as 14-1-1953 (sic 1933). In 1991, on his making a representation to the Corporation claiming that his date of birth is 15-7-1934, his request for correction was turned down. He filed OA No. 48263 of 1991 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. By the impugned order dated 8-10-1993, the Tribunal allowed the petition and directed to make the correction. Thus this appeal by special leave.

4. No doubt, sub-rule (5) of Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employees (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984, + From the Judgment and Order dated 8-10-1993 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 48263 of 1991 83 provides power for correction of the bona fide mistake in recording the date of birth. It cannot be said that it is a clerical mistake. The date of birth having been given and recorded in the service register as early in 1951, it was not a bona fide mistake. The respondent claimed that he discovered the mistake in 1991 that his date of birth instead is 15-7-1934 but it was recorded as 14-11-1933.

This is only a ruse to get over the bar of limitation to have the date of birth entered in the service record corrected. The rules prescribe the procedure for laying the application within three years from the date of entering into service. In 1976, executive instructions were issued for correction of date of birth which were replaced by statutory rules issued in 1984. The latter also prescribes the procedure. He did not avail of the opportunity when, twice, it was available to him to have it corrected. It would clearly show that subsequent belated attempt is not a bona fide one but to have the correction made to his advantage after the bar of limitation created by the rules.

The Tribunal has not properly considered the matter in this perspective. The appeal is allowed. OA stands dismissed.

No costs.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys