Aadhaar, Voter ID not conclusive proof of date of birth: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently clarified that Aadhaar and voter identity card cannot be treated as conclusive proof of date of birth in service cases [Pramila v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.].

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai noted that service records prepared at the time an employee enters service and relied upon throughout their career, are generally treated as reliable.

The Court added that such records cannot be replaced by identity documents like Aadhaar cards or voter identity cards that are created much later.

"The Aadhaar Card and Voter Identity Card relied upon by Respondent No.5 (Hirlibai) cannot be treated as determinative proof of her date of birth. These documents are prepared on the basis of self-declaration and are meant for identification purposes alone. They are neither primary evidence nor statutory proof for determination of age in service matters," the Court emphasised.

The observations were made while setting aside an order that had reinstated a retired Anganwadi Sahayika (Helper) and had resulted in the termination of her successor.

The ruling was delivered in a petition filed by Pramila who was appointed an Anganwadi Sahayika in June 2018 through a duly notified selection process.

Her appointment followed the retirement of the previous Anganwadi worker Hirlibai who retired in March 2017. The retirement date was based on her recorded date of birth in official records.

While Hirlibai did not challenge her retirement at the time, she approached the appellate authority nearly two years later.

Hirlibai claimed that her date of birth had been wrongly recorded. She relied on entries in her Aadhaar and voter identity cards, which showed her date of birth as January 1, 1964 (nearly nine years later than what was reflected in her service records).

The appellate authority allowed her appeal in September 2020, leading to her reinstatement and the termination of the petitioner.

The petitioner then moved the High Court.

The High Court noted that the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar card was not supported by any documentary proof.

It observed that the date of birth mentioned in Hirlibai’s Aadhaar card appeared to be an approximate entry often used when proper proof is not available, and held that it could not be used to override the official service records.

The Court also pointed out facts on record that contradicted Hirlibai’s claim of a later date of birth. It noted that the recorded birth years of her son and daughter-in-law came before the year she claimed to have been born.

"These undisputed facts clearly negate the possibility of Respondent No.5 (Hirlibai) having been born in the year 1964," said the Court.

The Court further observed that the appellate authority had failed to consider these aspects when deciding the appeal.

Beyond the question of Hirlibai’s date-of-birth claim, the Court highlighted serious procedural lapses in how the petitioner was removed from service.

It noted that Pramila, who had been appointed through a proper selection process, was neither made a party to the appeal nor given a chance to be heard even though the appellate authority knew the post was already filled.

"No independent notice of termination was issued, no inquiry was conducted and no reasons were assigned before terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was removed merely as a collateral consequence of the appellate order, which itself is legally flawed. Such a method of termination not only violates the principles of natural justice but also runs contrary to the departmental guidelines governing removal of Anganwadi Workers," the Court said.

The appellate order suffered from delay, improper reliance on inadmissible documents and violation of natural justice, the High Court said while quashing both the appellate order from 2020 and the resulting termination of Pramila.

The Court ordered that Pramila be reinstated with full service and benefits.

It also directed that any salary or benefits paid to the retired employee after her retirement, with interest, be recovered and returned to the State.

Advocate Akshay Bhonde appeared for Pramila.

Advocate SP Pandey represented Hirlibai.

Government Advocate Amit Bhatia represented the State and other respondents.

[Read Order]