Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Services, by an order dated, 28.04.1986. In the Service Register, his date of birth is entered as 09.07.1962, based on the entry made in the S.S.L.C. Book. 2. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 01.04.1963, as per the birth extract. He was born in Sivakalai Village, Tuticorin District. His parents are Thiru.Subbiah Pillai and Tmt.Saroja. He is the third child, born to them on 01.04.1963. The first son Mr.Elangovan was born on 27.08.1960. He is also employed in Secretariat. The second child was born on 03.04.1962 and died on 06.04.1962. Both the birth and death of the second child are registered under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Central Act No.18 of 1969) in the revenant Village Record on 08.04.1962. Hence, the petitioner could not have born on 09.07.1962. Based on the birth extract, he made a representation dated 23.02.1989 to the respondent to alter his date of birth from 09.07.1962 to 01.04.1963. 3. The respondent directed the Commissioner of Revenue Administration to give a report on the representation dated 23.02.1989, made by the petitioner. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin to investigate and to give a report, as to the date of birth of the petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer gave a report dated 12.07.1990. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration sent a report dated 30.07.1990, stating that the request of the petitioner should be turned down. Based on the said letter dated 30.07.1990 of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, the respondent passed an order dated 11.09.1990 rejecting the request of the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 20.09.1990 to the respondent to alter the date of birth, based on the birth extract. 5. The respondent sought for a report from the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration sent a report dated 07.04.1993, stating that the appeal of the petitioner deserves no consideration and the same has to be rejected. Based on the said letter dated 07.04.1993 of the Commissioner, the respondent passed the G.O.(3D).No.24, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 09.11.1999 rejecting the request of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner again gave a review petition dated 03.12.1999. The same was rejected by the Government by an order dated 17.02.2000, reiterating their earlier stand. 7. Based on the said letter dated 07.04.1993 of the Commissioner, the respondent passed the G.O.(3D).No.24, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 09.11.1999 rejecting the request of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner again gave a review petition dated 03.12.1999. The same was rejected by the Government by an order dated 17.02.2000, reiterating their earlier stand. 7. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.5924 of 2000 (W.P.No.46806 of 2006) to quash the G.O.(3D)No.24, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Aa.Na.1) Department, dated 09.11.1999 and also the order dated 17.02.2000 of the respondent and for a direction to the respondent to alter the date of birth as 01.04.1963 instead of 09.07.1962 in the Service Register and grant all consequential service benefits. 8. The respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. 9. The learned Government Advocate has produced the entire files relating to the impugned orders. I have perused the entire files and also heard the submissions from both sides. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the respondent relied on the report dated 07.04.1993 of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration for passing the impugned G.O.(3D)No.24, the respondent ought to have furnished the said copy to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the reasons given by the respondent are perverse. The impugned order states that, since the father of the petitioner gave a declaration in S.S.L.C. Book, the petitioner could not ask for alteration of date of birth. The learned counsel for the petitioner furthermore submits that such a view of the respondent is contrary to Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The declarations are obtained from the parents in a printed format in all cases. Hence, if declaration of the parents is put against the Government servant, there is no scope for alteration of date of birth and Rule 49 of the Rules could become redundant. Nextly, it is submitted that the respondent simply extracted in para 3 of the impugned order, the crux of the report of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. The respondent simply approved the view of the Commissioner, without applying its mind. Nextly, it is submitted that the respondent simply extracted in para 3 of the impugned order, the crux of the report of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. The respondent simply approved the view of the Commissioner, without applying its mind. The Commissioner has stated that, it is not known, whether the petitioner could have been qualified to appear for S.S.L.C. Examinations, if his date of birth was taken as 01.04.1963 at the time of admission in the school. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was qualified to appear for S.S.L.C examinations, even if the date of birth was recorded as 01.04.1963 instead of 09.07.1962. Since as per then existing rules, the students should have completed 15 years to appear for 11th standard and it is also submitted that when the 10, +2 system came, it became 14 years for the student to appear for the 10th standard. For both 10, +2 pattern and also in the earlier pattern, the petitioner was qualified to appear for the examination, even if the date of birth was recorded as 01.04.1963. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no reason for the Commissioner to state that the petitioner could not failed in between and that therefore the date of birth that was given as 09.07.1962 could have helped him to appear for the S.S.L.C examinations. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no parents could visualize that their children could fail in the classes, while giving the date of birth. The learned counsel further submits that the opinion of the Commissioner is solely based on suspicious and conjectures. 11. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has made her submissions based on the reply affidavit and seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, provides for alteration of date of birth. 12. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, provides for alteration of date of birth. Rules 49(a) and (b) are relevant for the purpose of the case and the same are extracted here-under:- "Alteration of date of birth – (a) If, at the time of appointment, a candidate claims that his date of birth is different from that entered in his S.S.L.C. or Matriculation Register or School records, he shall make an application to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in cases where the appointment is made in consultation with the Commission and in other cases to the appointing authority stating the evidence on which he relies and explaining how the mistake occurred. The application shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration for report after investigation by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector and, on receipt of the report, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or the appointing authority, as the case may be, shall decide whether the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application may be rejected. Provided that in case of a candidate who was born outside the State of Tamil Nadu the investigation through the Commissioner of Revenue Administration shall be dispensed with and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or the appointing authority, as the case may be, shall examine and scrutinize the records that may be produced by the candidate and shall decide whether the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application may be rejected. (b) After a person has entered service, an application to alter the date of birth as entered in the official records shall be entertained only if such an application is made within five years of such entry into service. Such an application shall be made to the authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the applicant at the time of his application and shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule(a)." As per Rule 49, application should be made, within 5 years of entry in to service. Admittedly, the petitioner made an application within 5 years. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner made an application within 5 years. 14. The petitioner made a representation dated 23.02.1989 to correct his date of birth in the Service Register, while he joined the service on 28.04.1986. The date of birth is recorded in the Service Register, based on the entry made in S.S.L.C. Book of the petitioner. It is true that the first page of the S.S.L.C book bears the date of birth of the petitioner as 09.07.1962. It is also true that the first page of S.S.L.C. Book contains a printed declaration. The printed declaration is as follows:- "I hereby declare that the particulars recorded against items 1 to 6 above are correct and that no change will be demanded in future." The father of the petitioner signed below the said declaration. 15. One of the reasons stated in the impugned G.O.(3D)No.24 is that since there is a declaration by the father of the petitioner in the S.S.L.C. Book, the petitioner cannot ask for alteration of date of birth. Firstly, the declaration is in the printed format. Thus, it could not be given the same weightage, as a written letter given by a person. Secondly, if the declaration of the father of the petitioner is acted upon, then Rule 49 of the Rules would become redundant. 16. Based on the representation of the petitioner dated 23.02.1989, the respondent sought a report from the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. In turn, the Commissioner sought a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin. The Revenue Divisional Officer, sent a report dated 12.07.1990 to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, after making a spot inspection and recording the statements and also looking into the records. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer supports the case of the petitioner. The report of Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 12.07.1990 is extracted here-under:- “Tamil” Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules extracted above makes it clear that the Commissioner of Revenue Administration should consider the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, while making a report to the respondent. But the letter dated 30.07.1990 of the Commissioner did not consider the detailed reasons given in the report dated 12.07.1990 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, while recommending alteration in the date of birth, though it is simply stated that the report was considered. But the letter dated 30.07.1990 of the Commissioner did not consider the detailed reasons given in the report dated 12.07.1990 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, while recommending alteration in the date of birth, though it is simply stated that the report was considered. The main reason that weighed with the Revenue Divisional Officer was that the petitioner was the third child to his parents, and that the second child was born on 03.04.1962 and died on 06.04.1962 and the birth and death extract of the said child was produced before him and further that the birth extract of the petitioner showing that his date of birth was 01.04.1963 was also produced before him. But the same was not considered at all. The report dated 30.07.1990 of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration is extracted here-under:- “Tamil” The reason given by the Commissioner for declining the request of the petitioner was mainly on the declaration of the father of the petitioner in the first page of the S.S.L.C. Book. 17. Based on the aforesaid said report dated 30.07.1990 of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, the respondent passed a cryptic order dated 11.09.1990. The order dated 11.09.1990 is as follows:- “Tamil” 18. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 20.09.1990 to the respondent. The respondent wrote a letter dated 03.02.1993 to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration directing the Commissioner to reconsider his earlier report dated 30.07.1990. The letter dated 03.02.1993 of the respondent to the Commissioner for Revenue Administration is extracted here-under:- "Sub: Estt. - Law Dept. - Thiru S. Sivasubramanian, A.S.O., Law Department – Alteration of date of birth – Regd. Ref: 1. Lr.No.G3/28708, O/o Commissioner of Revenue Administration, dated 30.07.1990. 2. Lr.No.G/28708/90, Commissioner of Revenue Administration, dated 24.08.1990. I am directed to invite your attention to the reference first cited (copy enclosed) in which you have not recommended for the alteration of date of birth of Thiru. Ref: 1. Lr.No.G3/28708, O/o Commissioner of Revenue Administration, dated 30.07.1990. 2. Lr.No.G/28708/90, Commissioner of Revenue Administration, dated 24.08.1990. I am directed to invite your attention to the reference first cited (copy enclosed) in which you have not recommended for the alteration of date of birth of Thiru. S.Sivasubramanian, A.S.O., Law Department, (formerly Assistant, MA & WS Department) from 09.07.1962 to 01.04.1963 on the following grounds, namely:- (i) That the petitioners father has given a certificate in the S.S.L.C. Book that the date of birth is correct and that he would not be approaching for any alteration of date of birth in future; and (ii) that the present request is to avail certain service benefits and that the wrong date of birth might have been given so as to avoid complication at the time of appearing for S.S.L.C. Examinations, considering the required age limit. As regards ground (i) above, it may be stated that, all the parents whose wards are appearing for S.S.L.C. examinations are required to certify that the date of birth of their wards given by them are correct and that no change will be demanded in future. As such, if the request for alteration of date of birth is to be negatived based on the declaration in the S.S.L.C. Book alone, even though other circumstantial evidences are in favour, then invariably almost all the cases for request of alteration of date of birth will have to be negatived. As regards (ii) above it may be, stated that, as per para 3 of G.O.Ms.No.1906, Education Department, dated 22.08.1977 (copy enclosed) the individual would have been eligible to write S.S.L.C. Examination (Xth standard) even if his date of birth had been 01.04.1963, because he would have completed 15 years of age on 01.04.1978. (2) I am further directed to invite your attention to the references second cited in which you have furnished a copy of the enquiry report of the R.D.O., Chidambaranar District, Tuticorin, who conducted the enquiry for the reference of the Government. In the said report, the R.D.O. Tuticorin, after verifying the birth extracts of the family members of the applicant, submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Perungulam has stated that the applicant Thiru.S.Sivasubramanian is the third child to his parents and the second child to his parents has been registered to have been born on 03.04.1962 and expired on 06.04.1962. In the said report, the R.D.O. Tuticorin, after verifying the birth extracts of the family members of the applicant, submitted by the Sub-Registrar, Perungulam has stated that the applicant Thiru.S.Sivasubramanian is the third child to his parents and the second child to his parents has been registered to have been born on 03.04.1962 and expired on 06.04.1962. As the second child has been recorded to have born on 03.04.1962, it is beyond doubt that the third child, namely, the applicant could not have born on 09.07.1962 (i.e) after three months itself from the birth of the second child, as indicated in the S.S.L.C. Book. 3. In view of the reasons stated above, I am directed to request you to re-examine the matter and send a revised report to Government at an early date." 19. In the said letter, the respondent made it clear that the declaration made by the parents of the children could not be taken as the basis for considering an application under Rule 49 of the Rules, otherwise the Rule becomes redundant. Secondly, in the letter dated 03.02.1993, the respondent pointed out about the detailed report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin, stating that the second child was born to the parents of the petitioner on 03.04.1962 and died on 06.04.1962 and therefore the petitioner could not have born on 09.07.1962. 20. But the Commissioner of Revenue Administration sent a report dated 07.04.1993 repeating the earlier view that was taken in his letter dated 30.07.1990. Based on the said report dated 07.04.1993, the respondent passed the impugned G.O.(3D).No.24, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 09.11.1999 rejecting the request. 21. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is not correct in stating that the declaration given by the father of the petitioner about the date of birth as 09.07.1962 cannot be an embargo for seeking alteration of date of birth under Rule 49 of the Rules. In fact, as stated above, the respondent wrote a letter dated 03.02.1993 to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration re-cording a similar view. I am of the view that if such a view is taken, Rule 49 would become redundant. The relevant portion in the letter dated 03.02.1993 of the respondent is reproduced again here under and that would make it clear that the impugned G.O. is against their own letter dated 03.02.1993. I am of the view that if such a view is taken, Rule 49 would become redundant. The relevant portion in the letter dated 03.02.1993 of the respondent is reproduced again here under and that would make it clear that the impugned G.O. is against their own letter dated 03.02.1993. "As regards ground (i) above, it may be stated that, all the parents whose wards are appearing for S.S.L.C. examinations are required to certify that the date of birth of their wards given by them are correct and that no change will be demanded in future. As such, if the request for alteration of date of birth is to be negatived based on the declaration in the S.S.L.C. Book alone, even though other circumstantial evidences are in favour, then invariably almost all the cases for request of alteration of date of birth will have to be negatived." 22. In the letter dated 03.02.1993, the respondent sought a report from the Commissioner of Revenue Administration reviewing his earlier report dated 30.07.1990. It was pointed out in the letter dated 03.02.1993 that the Revenue Divisional Officer made a spot enquiry and found that the parents of the petitioner had the second child on 03.04.1962 and the child died on 06.04.1962. The Revenue Divisional Officer also verified the Village Records and found that the same was true. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the birth and date extract of the child that was born on 03.04.1962 and died on 06.04.1962 to the parents of the petitioner. Hence, if the second child died on 06.04.1962, the petitioner could not have been born on 09.07.1962. In fact, the same is stated by the respondent in their letter dated 03.02.1993. But, still these aspects were not taken note of by the respondent while passing the impugned G.O. 23. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the perverse report dated 07.04.1993 was acted upon and simply approved by the respondent. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration stated that if the date of birth was recorded as 01.04.1963, the petitioner could not have qualified to write the S.S.L.C. Examination and that therefore, the date of birth could have been given as 09.07.1962. It was only a presumption without any basis. In fact it defies logic. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration stated that if the date of birth was recorded as 01.04.1963, the petitioner could not have qualified to write the S.S.L.C. Examination and that therefore, the date of birth could have been given as 09.07.1962. It was only a presumption without any basis. In fact it defies logic. The child that was born on 09.07.1962 and the child that was born on 01.04.1963 could be admitted only in the same academic year. One can understand that if the date of birth was given as 09.07.1961, that is, for the child whose date of birth is in July in the previous year and the child whose date of birth is April in the next year, both could be admitted in the same academic year. Thus, the date of birth as 09.07.1962 or 01.04.1963 could make no difference for admission in the School. Even if the date of birth recorded as 01.04.1963, the petitioner could write the S.S.L.C examination, as he completed 15 years when he wrote the S.S.L.C examination. The Commissioner of Revenue Administration stated that the petitioner could have failed in his studies. This also was based on a pure presumption. Further, as stated above, whether the date of birth is 09.07.1962 or 01.04.1963, that could make no difference for admission in the School. All these facts were not taken note of by the respondent, while passing the impugned order. 24. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the report of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer referred to above, that were relied on for passing the impugned order, were not furnished to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 25. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same are quashed. The respondent is directed to consider and pass fresh orders, particularly taking into account the aforesaid observations and also the report dated 12.07.1990 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tuticorin, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 26. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.