Re: [HumJanenge] Incorrect records = lame-duck Army Chief

I think that CoAS has always maintained his DoB as 10 May 1951. It is only in the UPSC where his DoB is shown as 1950. Some of the correspondence is at this link.
http://indianmilitarynews.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/army-chiefs-age-row-pits-general-vs-general/

"So even as the force and the Defence Ministry grapples with another controversy regarding its top officer, it is important to note that these flurry of letters were running parallel to investigations in the Sukhna land scam, where then Eastern Army Commander, Lieutenant General VK Singh had ordered a Court of Inquiry that was to later reach the top, to the Military Secretary Lieutenant General Avadesh Prakash and the Chief, General Deepak Kapoor."

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com> wrote:

If the COAS goes to Court, he will have it. One can't be selective in
this case. He can't claim to reckon his DoB as 1950 when 1950 suited
him and  1951  when 1951 suited him. If someone dig into the case he
has to answer for the benefits he availed by counting his DoB as 1950
and 1951.If he is wise, I think he is will not press the case as he
hardly get any gain other than one more year's service. He should
honourably vacate the post in 2012 to enable his junior to become
CoAS. in 2012

On 22/07/2011, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/army-chiefs-age-controversy-battle-not-over-warn-experts-121262
>
> The government's decision on the date of birth of the man who heads the
> Indian Army may not provide the closure many have been hoping for. Experts
> say a complicated and lengthy legal battle could follow in the next few
> months.
>
> Yesterday, the Defence Minister said that the government had accepted 1950
> as the year in which General VK Singh was born. The Army Chief has been
> arguing that he was born a year later. The problem is that Army records
> reflect both.
>
> The biggest implication is the year in which the Army Chief will retire -
> 2012, according to the government's decision. If it had accepted Mr Singh's
> date of birth, his tenure would have extended to 2013.
>
> Several legal experts, including three retired Chief Justices, have said
> that Mr Singh has a strong case against the government, should he decide to
> go to court.
>
> The Defence Ministry has asked the official record-keeper of the Army - the
> Adjutant General's branch - to change Mr Singh's date of birth in its
> records from May 10, 1950 to May 10, 1951. But defence regulations state
> that service records cannot be altered - a fact that the Adjutant General is
> likely to stress today to the government.
>
> This is the first time that the age of a military chief has become a matter
> of national concern and debate. Former Army chiefs state that the
> government's decision could inadvertently turn General Singh into a
> lame-duck Army Chief.
>
>
> Read more at:
> http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/army-chiefs-age-controversy-battle-not-over-warn-experts-121262&cp
>