1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for a writ in the naure of mandamus to direct the first respondent to admit the petitioner to the Civil Services (Main) Examination 1881, schedule to commence on Tuesday, the 10th Nov. 1981 and allow him to appear for the said examination.

2. During the pendency of the writ petition, by reason of the interim order passed on 9.11.1981 in WA No. 1755/81, the petitioner has been allowed to sit for the Civil Services (Main) Examination 1981. The Union Public Service Commission (shortly, ‘U.P.S.C’) was given discretion to publish or withhold the result of the examination of the petitioner. It is now submitted that the U.P.S.C has published the result of the petitioner and according to it he has passed the examination. The reason for not allowing the petitioner to appear for the aforesaid examination was that he was a candidate for the Civil Services (Main) Examination 1979 and at that Examination he had claimed 1-4-1952 as his date of birth and the same was accepted by the U.P.S.C, therefore 1-10-1954 as now claimed by the petitioner was not acceptable to the U.P.S.C having regard to Note 2 to Rule 6 of the Rules for the Competitive Civil Service Examination to be held by the U.P.S.C in 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’); the said note reads as follows:—

“Candidates should also note that once a date of birth has been claimed by them and entered in the records of the commission for the purpose of admission to an examination no change will be allowed subsequently or at any other examination of the commission.”

3. In order to appreciate the content on of the petitioner it is necessary to state some more facts of the case. On 21.10.1978 the petitioner had filed the suit bearing O.S 2621 of 1978 in the Court of the Munsiff, Bangalore, for a declaration that his date, of birth was 1.10.1954 and for a direction to the Karnataka Secondary Education Board to make necessary correction in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. The State Government and the, Karnataka Secondary Education. Board were made parties to the suit. During the year 1979 when the petitioner applied to the first respondent for a similar examination held in the year 1979, the suit had not been decreed and it was pending. The suit had been filed prior to making an application to the, 1st respondent for Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1979. The petitioner had given 1.4.1952 as his date of birth as entered in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate before it was corrected. In the meanwhile, the suit came to be decreed on 29.10.1980 declaring that the date of birth of the petitioner was 1.10.19” and further directing the Karnataka Secondary Education Board to make necessary correction in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the decree, the Karnataka Secondary Education Board has corrected the date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and it is the corrected certificate that has been produced along with the application for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1981, which is the examination which is in question.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the correct date of birth of the petitioner has been declared as 1.10.1954 by the decree of the competent Court and pursuant to that decree, correction has also been made by the competent authority in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner, it is not open for the U.P.S.C to refuse to admit the petitioner to the Examination in question. However, on behalf of the respondents it is contended by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government that the first respondent is not a party to the decree and as such, the declaration contained in the decree is not binding upon the U.P.S.C: that the entry made in the records of the U.P.S.C as far as it is concerned, is final and as such, the U.P.S.C is justified and is well within its power in refusing to admit the petitioner to sit for the Examination in question. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel has also placed reliance on a decision of the High Court of Calcutta in V.G Ravi v. General Manager, S.E Rly.(1) and S. 35 of the Specific Relief Act.

5. There is no doubfr that a decree of a Court normally, unless it is a judgment in rem, does not bind others who are not parties to it. In the instant case, the question is not whether the U.P.S.C is bound by a decree, but the question is whether the U.P.S.C can refuse to accept the date of birth of the petitioner as corrected by the competent authority in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner pursuant to the decree passed by a competent Court relating to the date of birth of the petitioner. Entry pertaining to the date of birth of the petitioner in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate has been corrected as 1.10.1954 by the Kar. Secon dary Edn. Board which is bound by the decree as it is a party to the decree. It is also not the case of the respondents that the decree in question is a nullity. Under Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules, the U.P.S.C has held out to the candidates that the date of birth entered in any one of the certificates mentioned in the said Rule is acceptable to it. The relevant portion of R 6 of the Rules reads thus:—

“The date of birth accepted by the Commission is that entered in the Matriculation or Secondary School Leaving Certificate or in a Certificate recognised by an Indian University as equivalent to Matriculation or in an extract from a Register of Matriculates maintained by a University, which extract must be certified by the proper authority of the University or in the Higher Secondary or an equivalent examination certificate. These certificates are required to be submitted only at the time of applying for the Civil Services (Main) Examination.

No other document relating to age like horoscopes, affidavits, birth extracts from Municipal Corporation, service records and the like will be accepted.

The expression Matriculation Secondary Examination Certificate in this part of the instruction includes the alternative certificates mentioned above.

Note 1:— Candidates should note that only the date of birth as recorded in the Matriculation Secondary Examination certificate or an equivalent Certificate on the date of submission of application will be accepted by the commission, and no subsequent request for its change will be considered or granted.”

6. From the aforesaid extract of the relevant portion of Rule 6 of the Rules, it is clear that the U.P.S.C is bound to accept the entry relating to date of birth found) in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. Now the certificate which is produced along with the application of the petitioner contains 1.10.1954 as the date of birth of the petitioner as it is corrected pursuant to the decree referred to above passed by a competent Court. Merely because on the earlier occasion, at the 1979 Examination, the date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 1.4.1952, it was not open for the U.P.S.C to refuse to accept the date of birth as entered in the Secondary school leaving certificate of the petitioner which was produced along with the application for the 1981 Examination.

7. Note 2 to Rule 6 of the Rules is attracted only when the U.P.S.C is requested by a candidate to change the date of birth. The U.P.S.C is not competent to decide the claim of a candidate that his or her correct date of birth is something else than the one that has already been entered in the records of the U.P.S.C It is because of this, note 2 of Rule 6 of the Rules rightly provides that once a date of birth has been claimed by a candidate and is noted in the records of the commission for the purposes of admission to an examination, no change will be allowed subsequently or at any other examination of the commission. But Note 2 to Rule 6 of the Rules is not applicable to a case where, at a subsequent examination the candidate produces a certificate falling within one of the categories of the certificates mentioned in Rule 6 of the Rules containing a date of birth different from the one that has already been entered in the records of the commission. In such a case, the Commission is not requested to change the date of birth of a candidate but it is requested to accept the date of birth as entered in the certificate produced along with the application. As long as the certificate containing the date of birth of a candidate falls within the category of the certificates mentioned in Rule 6 of the Rules, the commission is required to accept the date of birth as entered in the certificate, as long as the genuineness of such a certificate is not in question. In the instant case, though on an earlier occasion when the petitioner appeared for a similar examination in 1979, he did give his date of birth as 1.4.1952 as that was the date mentioned in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner and was accepted by the Commission and accordingly 1.4.1952 was entered in the records of the commission as the date of birth of the petitioner. But, by the time he applied for the, 1981 examination, the date of birth of the petitioner came to be declared by a decree of a competent Court as 1.10.1954 to which the Karnataka, Secondary Education Board was a party. Accordingly, the said Board had corrected the date of birth of the petitioner as 1.10.1954 in the secondary School ??? Certificate. It was this corrected certificate which was produced before the U.P.S.C Therefore, it was a case in which the U.P.S.C was asked to accept the date of birth of the petitioner as corrected in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. Having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 6 of the Rules, immediately preceding Note 2 thereof, the U.P.S.C was required to accept the date of birth as entesred in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner. Thus, it was a case to which note 2 of Rule 6 of the Rules, was not applicable. It was also not a case in which it could be said that the petitioner wanted to enforce the decree in question against the U.P.S.C but it was a case in which the petitioner wanted the U.P.S.C to accept the date of birth as entered in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate as per Rule 6 of the Rules.

8. From what has been stated above, it becomes clear that the decision of the Calcutta High Court, in V.G Ravi's Case on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the respondents, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In that case, the, petitioner sought for a mandamus to be issued to the Railway Board to change his date of birth in the service Register on the basis of a decree obtained by him relating to his date of birth to which the Railway Board was not made a party. The mandamus was refused on the ground that there was no statutory rule or provision which made it obligatory or compelled the Railway Board to effect a change in the entry relating to date of birth of the petitioner as entered in his Service Register. It was also further held that the Railway Establishment Code was only an enabling provision and it was not at all obligatory on the part of the General Manager of the Railways to alter the entry relating to date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Register of course, during the course of the judgment, it was also stated that since the Railway Board was not made a party to the suit, it was not bound by the decree. But the mandamus was refused not on that ground, but it was refused on the ground that there was no provision making it obligatory on the concerned authority to alter the entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the Service Register. Thus, it is clear that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the case on hand. In the instant case, as it has already been pointed out, under Rule 6 of the Rules, the U.P.S.C is required to accept the date of birth of the petitioner as corrected in the ??? School Leaving Certificate. Therefore, the U.P.S.C is not justified in law, in refusing to accept the date of birth of the petitioner as corrected in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. It is not in dispute that if the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 1.10.54 he will not be over-aged for admission to Civil Services (Main Examination 1981).

9. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is entitled to succeed. It is accordingly allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to the first respondent to admit the petitioner to the Central Services (Main) Examination, 1981.