merlin wrote:I have zero, 0, zip, nada, confidence of the SC protecting me if GoI is intent on screwing me.
That's tough for you. Let's hope you don't have two birth dates when you take up your government job. Children in India will not be allowed to write exams or join educational institutions if the written date of birth and the date on the birth certificate don't match. Ultimately in India the date of birth on the school leaving certificate is accepted as the de facto date of birth (possibly because many Indians do not have birth certificates). College application forms demand the entering of date of birth as in the school leaving certificate.
However here we have a man who joined the army with one date and his rise to the top was based on that date of birth and his competence of course. It turns out that his actual birth certificate has a different date.
Here is a timeline of the controversy:http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/time ... 72949.html
The controversy over army chief General V.K. Singh's age has been dragging on for several years. It started with General Singh, as a young officer, submitting his year of birth as 1951 in a school certificate and the Indian Army list publishing it as 1950 about 38 years back.
Army adjutant general branch recorded the date of birth as May 10, 1951, but military secretary's branch recorded it as 1950.
In 2002, General Singh demanded the differing records to be reconciled.
He was promoted to Lieutenant General's rank in 2006. He said he was forced to give an undertaking accepting 1950 as the year of birth.
In 2008, he was again promoted as Army Commander. His supporters said undertaking maintaining 1950 as year of birth was extracted under coercion.
In October 2010, an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was filed by an IAS officer seeking army chief's age.
In May 2011, General Singh petitioned in the ministry of defence, demanding a "reconciliation" of his date of birth.
In July 2011, the ministry rejected his petition based on the attorney general's opinion.
In August 2011, General Singh filed a statutory complaint with Defence Minister A.K. Antony.
The defence ministry rejected army chief's plea for a change in his age on December 30, 2011.
On January 16, 2012, General Singh moved the Supreme Court challenging the government order.
On February 3, the Supreme Court questioned the manner in which the government handled the issue of General Singh's age contention. It gave the government time till February 10 to explain its stand
On February 10, 2012, the defence ministry withdraws its December 30, 2011 order but stands by July 2011 order. SC upholds defence ministry's decision of maintaining 1950 as the year of birth and asks army chief to withdraw his petition and settle the issue amicably with the government. General Singh abides. Lawyer announces matter "resolved amicably".
Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/time ... 72949.html
The General has asked for a reconciliation in 2002.
No reconciliation was done but he was offered a promotion in 2006 on the basis of his 1950 date (as opposed to his real 1951 date). This happened again in a 2008 promotion.
An RTI asked about his real date of birth in 2010. I suspect this was a motivated act perhaps by one of his fellow officers. Anyhow an RTI is an RTI. No one can refuse. But this RTI would have served as an insult to the general. Once the RTI findings were public, the general had no option but to save his honor or be called a liar. The general did exactly that. He played the ball into the governments court, but clearly the government was in no position to make him 1 year younger having earlier declared him 1 year older and having signed documents from him accepting that, under duress or not.
The government was right in refusing to change it, but that still left the General open to being called a liar. He had no option but to go to the Supreme court. He has saved his honor by doing that. In India Indians are supposed to accept the verdict of the Supreme court. The General has done that. He is not a liar. The government was in a situation that the Government could not correct. The original error was probably a twin error - or maybe one lie (by schoolteacher) and one error by Army clerk.
I cannot see how the government can change the date of birth after accepting another one . Was the General totally unaware of his real year of birth from the time he joined the Army (maybe 1969 or 70) for 32 years until he asked for a "reconciliation"? No one has publicly asked this question. It need not have been raked up at all because the error was not his. But once it came up he had to save his honor. He has done that well. He has lost nothing. I don't know why people are getting their chaddis so twisted up.