Introduction:

Yatish Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others was decided by the Allahabad High Court, where Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery examined an important issue concerning determination of date of birth in government service records. The dispute arose after the petitioner’s date of birth, originally recorded in his service book at the time of appointment, was altered decades later on the basis of a school transfer certificate, resulting in advancement of his retirement date by more than a year.

The petitioner was appointed in 1988 as a Shramik at the Harduaganj Thermal Power Plant in Kasimpur, Aligarh. At the time of recruitment, he had not passed the High School or any equivalent examination. As part of the recruitment process, he underwent a medical examination, and his age was assessed to be around twenty years. On that basis, his date of birth was entered in the service records as 19 October 1967, making his date of retirement 31 October 2027.

Many years later, the petitioner discovered that his date of birth in the records had been changed to 14 April 1966 using white ink. According to him, this alteration was made during an inquiry conducted when he was around thirty-five years old, without his knowledge or participation. The revised entry had the effect of changing his retirement date to 30 April 2026. He challenged the subsequent retirement orders before the High Court.

The legal controversy centered on Rule 2 of the U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, which lays down how the date of birth of a government employee is to be determined. The rule gives primacy to the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service where the employee has not passed the High School or equivalent examination.

The case therefore raised broader questions about the sanctity of service records, the extent to which authorities can revisit an employee’s age decades after appointment, and the procedural safeguards required before altering entries that directly affect retirement and pensionary rights.

Arguments of the Parties:

Petitioner’s case

The petitioner argued that his date of birth was validly recorded as 19 October 1967 at the time of his appointment in 1988. He emphasized that this entry was made on the basis of a medical examination conducted during recruitment and remained consistently reflected in the service records for several years.

According to the petitioner, the authorities later conducted an inquiry into his age behind his back, without issuing any notice or giving him an opportunity to participate. During this process, his original date of birth was allegedly erased or modified with white ink and replaced with the date 14 April 1966. He claimed that he became aware of this manipulation only much later and obtained documents relating to the inquiry through the Right to Information Act.

The petitioner contended that the revised date was based on a transfer certificate, which was not a document recognized under the 1974 Rules for determination of date of birth in service matters. Since he had not passed High School or an equivalent examination at the time of appointment, Rule 2 mandated that the date recorded in the service book at entry into service would be deemed final and correct for all purposes.

He further submitted that the alteration of his date of birth had serious civil consequences because it advanced his retirement date by more than a year. Such a decision, he argued, could not legally be taken without notice, hearing, or adherence to principles of natural justice. He also pointed out that various official documents consistently reflected the original date of birth and that there was no reason for him to seek a change that would cause him to retire earlier.

State’s position

The State defended the alteration by relying on the inquiry conducted regarding the petitioner’s age and the transfer certificate obtained during that process. According to the authorities, the inquiry revealed that the petitioner’s actual date of birth was 14 April 1966, and the service records were corrected accordingly.

The respondents maintained that the revised entry reflected the correct factual position and justified the change in the petitioner’s retirement date. They treated the transfer certificate as supporting evidence for the correction made in the service records.

However, the State did not dispute that the petitioner had not passed High School or an equivalent examination at the time of his appointment. Nor could it clearly explain why the correction was made without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or why the original entry had been overwritten using white ink rather than corrected through a transparent and formally recorded process.

Court’s Judgment:

• Primacy of the service book entry under Rule 2

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery began by examining Rule 2 of the U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974. The rule creates a clear hierarchy for determining the date of birth of a government employee. Where an employee has passed the High School or equivalent examination, the date recorded in the educational certificate may be relied upon. However, where the employee has not passed such an examination, the date of birth entered in the service book at the time of entry into service is deemed to be the correct date for all purposes.

Applying this rule, the Court held that the petitioner’s case fell squarely within the second category because he had not passed High School or any equivalent examination at the time of his appointment in 1988. Consequently, the date of birth recorded in his service book on entry into service—19 October 1967—had to be treated as final and correct.

The Court observed:

“Law in regard to determination of correct date of birth or age is well settled that provisions of Rule 2 of Rules 1974, shall be applicable that since at the time of entry into service, the petitioner has not passed High School or equivalent examination, therefore, date of birth recorded in service book at the time of entry shall be deemed to be correct date of birth.”

• Transfer certificate not a relevant document

The High Court found that the later date of birth, 14 April 1966, had been introduced into the service records on the basis of a transfer certificate. The Court held that such a certificate was not one of the documents recognized by the 1974 Rules for determining the date of birth of a government servant in the petitioner’s circumstances.

The Court also took note of the manner in which the correction was made. The original entry showing 1967 had been properly recorded, whereas the new entry showing 1966 appeared to have been inserted later using white ink. This raised serious doubts about the legitimacy and transparency of the alteration.

• Violation of natural justice

A central aspect of the judgment was the Court’s finding that the authorities acted in violation of principles of natural justice. Changing an employee’s date of birth decades after appointment directly affects retirement, salary, pension, and other service benefits. Such a decision cannot be taken unilaterally and secretly.

The Court held that the alleged inquiry into the petitioner’s age and the consequent alteration of his service records could not lawfully be carried out behind his back. At a minimum, the petitioner was entitled to notice of the proposed action, disclosure of the material relied upon, and an opportunity to respond.

• Reliance on Supreme Court precedent

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, where the Supreme Court had interpreted the same 1974 Rules and held that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into government service is deemed to be correct and ordinarily cannot be reopened through later applications or representations.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated:

“As per the existing rule, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service-book at the time of entry into the government service shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever.”

This precedent reinforced the conclusion that the authorities had no legal basis to discard the original service book entry in favor of a later transfer certificate.

• Findings and relief granted

The Court noted that multiple official records consistently reflected the original date of birth of 19 October 1967. It also found it implausible that the petitioner himself would seek a correction that resulted in his retirement occurring earlier than originally scheduled.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the orders altering the petitioner’s date of birth and advancing his retirement date. The original service book entry was restored, and the petitioner’s retirement date continued to be treated as 31 October 2027.

• Significance of the Judgment

The decision reinforces the finality and sanctity of service records in public employment. It sends a clear message that authorities cannot casually reopen or manipulate an employee’s date of birth decades after appointment, especially where statutory rules give conclusive effect to the original service book entry.

The judgment is also important for its emphasis on procedural fairness. Even where the State believes that an employee’s recorded age is incorrect, any attempt to alter service records must comply with principles of natural justice and the governing statutory framework.

Finally, the ruling provides practical clarity for government employees and departments alike: where an employee had not passed High School or an equivalent examination at the time of appointment, the date of birth recorded in the service book at entry into service will ordinarily prevail over later-discovered school documents or transfer certificates.