{"id":9025,"date":"2026-07-01T09:42:05","date_gmt":"2026-07-01T09:42:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/?p=9025"},"modified":"2026-07-01T09:42:07","modified_gmt":"2026-07-01T09:42:07","slug":"tampered-documents-no-relief-rajasthan-high-court-refuses-date-of-birth-change-in-service-records","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/tampered-documents-no-relief-rajasthan-high-court-refuses-date-of-birth-change-in-service-records\/","title":{"rendered":"Tampered Documents, No Relief: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Date of Birth Change in Service Records"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Jaipur:<\/strong> The Rajasthan High Court has delivered an important judgment on requests by government employees to change their date of birth in official service records. The Court held that if the original records or documents show clear signs of tampering, it cannot grant relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court also made it clear that an employee cannot seek a change in their date of birth simply by claiming, years later, that it was recorded incorrectly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case involved Roop Narayan Meena, an employee of Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. His service records recorded his date of birth as 5 June 1966, and based on this, the department scheduled his retirement for 30 June 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meena approached the High Court claiming that his actual date of birth was 5 June 1967. He argued that the department had mistakenly entered the wrong birth date at the time of his appointment and requested the Court to correct the records and stop his retirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meena claimed that the documents he had submitted at the time of joining, including his school certificate and birth certificate, mentioned 5 June 1967. According to him, the department had incorrectly recorded 5 June 1966 in his service records, which would result in his premature retirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After hearing the employee’s arguments, the High Court directed the department to produce the original service records. When the records were examined, the Court found that the column containing the employee’s date of birth had been filled in by Meena himself, and he had written 5 June 1966. This directly contradicted his claim that the department had made the mistake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also examined the employee’s original Transfer Certificate (TC). It observed that there were obvious alterations in both the date of birth and age columns. According to the Court, the tampering was so apparent that it could be noticed without any detailed investigation. Because of these visible alterations, the Court refused to rely on the document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on these findings, Justice Rekha Borana dismissed the petition. The Court held that there was no basis to accept the employee’s request because the original service record, filled in by the employee himself, supported the existing date of birth, while the Transfer Certificate appeared to have been tampered with. The Court also refused to stay his retirement, meaning he would retire on the scheduled date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judgment sends an important message to government employees. The High Court made it clear that requests to change the date of birth at the end of one’s service cannot succeed merely on the basis of later claims. If an employee has already entered or accepted a particular date of birth in the service records, they must produce strong, reliable, and convincing evidence to prove that it was incorrect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also emphasized that it will not rely only on oral arguments or photocopies. It can call for the original service records and other original documents to verify the facts. If those records do not support the employee’s claim, or if there are signs of tampering or manipulation, the Court will give greater importance to the authenticity of the official records and is unlikely to grant any relief.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has delivered an important judgment on requests by government employees to change their date of birth in official service records. The Court held that if the original records or documents show clear signs of tampering, it cannot grant relief. The court also made it clear that an employee cannot seek … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9026,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[69,29],"tags":[1144,1134,967,647,814,646,1142,561,1140,1136,300,1135,43,278,228,1139,1133,1143,1137,86,1146,1138,1141,1145],"class_list":["post-9025","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-rajasthan-high-court","category-top-stories","tag-birth-date-correction","tag-date-of-birth-change","tag-documentary-evidence","tag-employment-law","tag-government-employee","tag-government-employees","tag-government-service","tag-high-court-judgment","tag-justice-rekha-borana","tag-labour-law","tag-legal-news-india","tag-official-records","tag-rajasthan-high-court","tag-rajasthan-judiciary","tag-rajasthan-news","tag-rajasthan-state-ganganagar-sugar-mills","tag-retirement-age","tag-retirement-dispute","tag-roop-narayan-meena","tag-service-law","tag-service-record-dispute","tag-service-records","tag-tampered-documents","tag-transfer-certificate"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9025","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9025"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9025\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9027,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9025\/revisions\/9027"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9026"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9025"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9025"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}