Rule 69.2 came for interpretation before this court in the case of Pervinder Kumar Vs. Secretary, CB.S.E. Haryana Circle and others, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 237, wherein in paras 14 and 15 of the judgement, this court made the following observations :
" 14. In the case of Karam Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, this Court has relied upon three decisions, namely, Jiwan Dass Vs. State of Haryana 1989(2) ILR Punjab and Haryana 110, Hari Parshad Handa Vs. State of Punjab (1985-1)87, PLR 39 and State of Haryana Vs. Chander Singh alias Chander Bhan, 1988(2) PLR 264. In the case of Jiwas Dass Vs. State of Haryana (supra), it was held that even if the period of two years or extended period of six months are not available and there is no remedy left under the administrative law after the stipulated period has expired, legal remedy under the civil law will still be available, because administrative law cannot, in fact, bar the jurisdiction of civil courts. It was further held that even the decisions of administrative authorities allowing or rejecting those requests for alternation in date of birth which may have been made within the stipulated period, too are open to judicial scrutiny when challenged before a Court of competent jurisdiction. It was thus held in the case of Jiwan Dass Vs. State of Haryana and another (supra) that even if a remedy as per the administrative law/rules had become barred by limitation, a legal remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the civil law before a civil court.