Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 4367 (MAD)

R. Deepak v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniform Service

2009-10-21

K.N.BASHA

body2009
Judgment :- The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking for the relief of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent through his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.135949/B6-3/09 dated 17.08.2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to implement the corrections of the Date of Birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificated holding Registration Numbers 604542, 554138 & 701307 dated 21.06.2000, 27.12.2001 & 30.05.2002 respectively. 2. Mr. T.S. Mohamed Mohideen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for the post of Second Grade Constable on 17.07.2009 as the petitioner is qualified and competent for such post. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was born on 30.10.1983 in Suguna Hospital, Sivagangai and the date of birth was registered with the second respondent by his father. But when the petitioner was admitted in the school by mentioning the date of birth as 01.06.1983 due to inadvertence. It is submitted that in view of the same, the said date of birth was also entered into the Secondary School Leaving Certificates. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of such defect occurred while the petitioner preferring his application for the above said post obtained the certificate mentioning the date of birth as 30.10.1983 from the second respondent under Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 2000. It is contended that thereafter, the petitioner has not made any application before the Educational Authorities to make suitable correction in respect of the date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificates book and as such, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 5824 of 2009, seeking the relief of direction to call the petitioner for interview and the said writ petition is also pending. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless the entry made in the Secondary School Leaving Certificates mentioning the date of birth as 01.06.1983 is corrected by incorporating the correct date of birth as 30.10.1983, he may not be in a position to attent the interview on the ground of over age and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court for the above said relief. 3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that preference would be given to the certificate issued by the competent authority as per the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 as well as the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 2000. In support of such contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order of this Court in a similar matter dated 14.08.2008 passed in W.P.No.5929 of 2008. the learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the following decisions: 1. 1989 Writ L.R. (S.P. Chandra Mohan (Minor) Rep. by his father & natural Guardian Panneerselvam) 2. A.I.R. 1966 Patna 458 (Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur Abdul Wahab) 3. A.I.R. 1970 Calcutta 292 (Dalim Kumar Sain and Others Smt. Nandarani Dassi and Another) 4. A.I.R. 1999 SC 1587 (Santenu Mitra State of West Bengal) 4. Mr. V. Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the date of birth mentioned and recorded in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate is the earliest one and the said date was given by the father of the petitioner and as such, the date of birth mentioned in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate cannot be over looked. It is submitted that the present certificate obtained by the petitioner from the Municipal Authority is a subsequent one. The learned Special government Pleader further contended that only with a view to get the eligibility for attending the interview for the selection of Second Grade Constable, the petitioner has resorted to get the certificate from the Municipal Authority and as such no reliance is placed on the said certificate. 5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The crux of the question involved in this matter is whether the date of birth entered into the Secondary School Leaving certificate book is to be relied or the date of birth certificate issued by the Municipal authority/second respondent is to be relied for determining the correct age of the petitioner. 7. It is seen that the said question arouse out of the application submitted by the petitioner for the post of Second Grade Constable as the petitioner would be disqualified if the date of birth is relied as per the Secondary School Leaving Certificate as i.e. 01.06.1983, on the ground that the petitioner is over age. 7. It is seen that the said question arouse out of the application submitted by the petitioner for the post of Second Grade Constable as the petitioner would be disqualified if the date of birth is relied as per the Secondary School Leaving Certificate as i.e. 01.06.1983, on the ground that the petitioner is over age. It is the explanation of the petitioner that due to mistake and inadvertence, the father of the petitioner has given wrong date of birth at the time of admission in the school and as such, the school record mentioned the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.06.1983 Now, the petitioner relies on the certificate issued by the second respondent the Commissioner, Sivagangai Municipality, Sivagangai. There is no doubt that the second respondent is the competent authority to issue the birth certificate as per the provisions under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 as well as the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 2000. 8. It is pertinent to note that the certificate issued by the second respondent herein is correct as already pointed out that the said authority is the competent authority and further the certificate issued by the second respondent reveals that the said certificate is based on the extract taken from the original registered which makes it crystal clear that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded and incorporated the date of birth of the petitioner on the next day of his birth i.e on 30.10.1983 and there is no reason to doubt about the date of birth certificate issued by the second respondent herein. 9. This Court while dealing a similar question has categorically in W.P.No.5929 of 2003 dated 14.08.2008 that the certificate issued by the competent authority is to be preferred than the school certificate. The learned Judge in this said decision relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in reported in A.I.R. 1999 SC 1587 (Santenu Mitra State of West Bengal). In another decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is 1989 Writ L.R. (S.P. Chandra Mohan (Minor) Rep. by his father & natural Guardian Panneerselvam) wherein, this Court has taken a view that the date of birth mentioned in the birth extract form the Municipality is more reliable and authenticated one. In Another decision reported in A.I.R. 1966 Patna 458 (Tata Iron & Steel Co. by his father & natural Guardian Panneerselvam) wherein, this Court has taken a view that the date of birth mentioned in the birth extract form the Municipality is more reliable and authenticated one. In Another decision reported in A.I.R. 1966 Patna 458 (Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur Abdul Wahab) has held that the mere entry in the school admission register could not be taken to be conclusive proof as the correct date of birth. In yet Another decision reported in A.I.R. 1970 Calcutta 292 (Dalim Kumar Sain and Others Smt. Nandarani Dassi and Another) has held that the certified copy signed by the Chief Executive Officer of Municipal Corporation and it is automatic evidence as public document and as such the said document is amount to a conclusive evident unless the same is disproved in other evidence. 10. In view of the above settled principle of law laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the certificate issued by the second respondent herein who is the competent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 as well as the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules 2000, this Court has no hesitation to direct the third respondent herein to incorporate the date of birth of the petitioner in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate as per the date of birth issued by the second respondent the Commissioner, Sivagangai Municipality, Sivagangai as 30.10.1983. 11. With the above said direction, the Writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.