Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus MRS. SAROJ BALA
- Decided
- 13 December 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 656 · 1995 INSC 890
- Also cited as
- AIR 1996 SC 1000
- (1996) 2 SCC 81
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 657, margin C
We have heard the counsel for both the parties. The respondent has appeared in the year 1971 for the All India Civil Services Examination wherein she had annexed her school record in which her date of birth was recorded as April 4, 1949. On the basis of the selection in the competitive examination, she was selected for All India Revenue Service (income· Tax) in the year 1972 and she joined the service in the said year, On June 18, 1985, she approached the University for correction of her date of birth to be April 5, 1950. The University by its proceedings dated October 13, 1986 had rejected the same. The respondent then filed an application on February 5, 1991 for correction of the date of birth which was rejected by · the Government on April 4, 1991. Thereafter the respondent filed O.A. in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. By the impugned order dated 6.1.1992, the Tribunal held that the date of birth of the respondent is April 5, 1950 and directed correction of her date of birth in the service record within the time specified in the order. Thus this appeal by special leave.
p. 657, margin D
Shri R.S. Suri, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that the birth certificate given by the Registrar do indicate that her date of birth is April 5, 1950 and that the mother had filed an affidavit in support thereof. It is also sought corroboration from the date of birth certificate of her elder sister and due to close proximity of six months between the birth of two children, it would not be possible that the respondent would have been born. He also relied upon the horoscope to prove her date of birth.
pp. 657–658, margin G
We are wholly unable to appreciate the stand of the respondent. The respondent's parents are not illiterate. She is a well educated one she competed in All India Civil Services Examination. Her date of birth was registered in the University to be April 4, 1949. On that basis, she appeared for the examination, sought selection and accordingly she was selected. The said date has been entered in the service record and remained undisputed for 18-1/2 years. Subsequently it appears that she discovered in a talk with her sister that her date of birth is incorrect. Then enquiries were made and birth certificate obtained which mentioned the birth of the child and the parentage of the respondent. Horoscope was also sought to be set up to corroborate those circumstances.
p. 658, margin A
It is unthinkable that having been born in an educated family and having remained in service for 18 years she discovered that her date of birth would be wrong. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was wholly unjustified and obviously illegal in allowing the application and directing correction of the date of birth. Though Mr. Suri sought to bring to our notice that she made her representation in the year 1981, it is of little importance for disposal of the matter on merits.
p. 658, margin C
The order of the tribunal is set asdie. The Appeal is allowed. No costs. v.s.s. Appeal allowed.
p. 658, margin E