Full Judgment
Oral Judgment:
1. Heard Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rasesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent authorities.
2. Petitioner wanted his date of birth be changed from 08.07.1949 to 15.07.1952 which was denied by the Government, which is under challenge in this petition. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had joined the service as Medical Officer on 12.09.1978 and at the time of entering in service, the date of birth was entered in the service record as 08.07.1949, since the same was reflected in the school leaving certificate. It is also stated that in the application form also the petitioner had indicated 08.07.1949 as his date of birth. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in the year 1994, the petitioner moved an application to the Government that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 15.07.1952 and therefore, the same be corrected. The authorities denied the same mainly on the ground that the claim of the petitioner was very late and in view of the policy of the Government, within the probation period or within five years from joining the service, petitioner could have moved the Government and the same would have considered on merits. In the present case since the petitioner had joined the service in the year 1978 and had moved the Government in this regard in the year 1994, his case was not considered on merits. The denial of the Government is conveyed to the petitioner by his Head of Department which is the Health Department. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that it is the General Administration Department, who could reject the application of the petitioner and the denial is communicated by the Health Department, Government of Gujarat, therefore the denial is by an incompetent authority. It is also contended that discretion always lies with the Government to entertain the request of the employees when sufficient material is put to the notice that the date of birth as entered in school register, was inconsistent with the actual date of birth. It is submitted that the petition be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rindani contended that, in view of the policy of the Government, after more than fifteen years of service, the request of the petitioner could not have been considered. It is also pointed out that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation in the year 2007. It is also pointed out that the first denial was communicated to the petitioner on 01.03.1995, which is on record and six years thereafter the petitioner approached this Court. It is contended by learned Assistant Government Pleader that not only there is delay of about ten years in approaching the Government, there was delay of more than a decade in approaching the Government in that regard and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the decision of the Government.
4. Having heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader and having gone through the record of the case, this Court finds that no exception needs to be made in the decision of the Government of not entertaining the request of the petitioner to correct the date of birth from 08.07.1949 to 15.07.1952, since the petitioner had joined the service in the year 1978 and the request was made in the year 1994. The contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner that the denial ought to have been from the authority of the General Administration Department, is also not well founded that since the Government Resolution dated 11.08.1989, which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, also stipulates that the if the concerned Administrative Department, which in this case was the Family Welfare Department finds that the proposal is worth accepting and if that Department is of the opinion that there are valid reason for correcting the date of birth, then that acceptance cannot be made without consultation with the General Administration Department. In the present case, the Authority of Health Department found that the request of the petitioner could not have been considered and therefore, even as per the said policy, the denial had to be made by the Authority of Health Department itself which is done in this case.
5. From record it also transpires that, the application of the petitioner in this regard, was forwarded by the Commissioner of Health to the Government in Health Department for appropriate consideration. Keeping in view the general guidelines of the Government in this regard dated 11.08.1989, the Government rejected the application of the petitioner and the same was conveyed by the Government to the Commissioner for being intimated to the petitioner vide communication dated 01.03.1995. The petitioner continued to renew his request from time to time and the Government also continued to reply on the same lines as evident from the letters dated 25.07.1996, 29.08.1997, 10.12.1999, 18.09.2000 and 27.08.2004. Thus the denial by the authorities on the ground of delay is sought to be challenged by a further delay of about a decade.
6. It is also on record that the Government, in view of the policy, rejected the claim of the petitioner for correction of date of birth mainly on the ground that the petitioner had joined the service in the year 1978 and the request of the petitioner, in this regard, has to be considered only within the probation period or within five years from the date of joining the service, which ever is earlier. In these circumstances, the application of the petitioner was not considered on merits. Under these circumstances, the request of the petitioner being delayed by years and decade, was not considered by the Government, and I find that the said denial is neither illegal nor arbitrary.
7. Considering the totality of the case, this Court does not find any illegality in the decision of the authorities of Government not to accept the request of the petitioner for correction of date of birth. The petition has no force and the same needs to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.