Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2102 (MAD)

Govt. of Tamil Nadu rep v. S. Selvanathan

2012-04-26

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, M.VENUGOPAL

body2012
Judgment :- Justice Elipe Dharma Rao) 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 26.07.2010, made in W.P.No.23900 of 2009, whereby a direction was issued to the second respondent therein, who is the second appellant herein, to alter the writ petitioner's date of birth from 06.01.1952 to 23.03.1954 in his service register and allow him to retire from service with all benefits including re-induction in service with service and monetary benefits. 2. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 07.06.1974 in Sub-Treassury, Tittagudi, South Arcot District, vide order of the Director and Treasuries and Accounts, Madras, dated 25.02.1974, based on the selection made by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and within a period of five years of entry into service, he made a representation, dated 03.08.1978, to the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Madras, for alteration of his date of birth in the service register as 23.03.1954 from 06.01.1952 on the ground that his date of birth was wrongly given as 06.01.1952 by his parents at the time of admission into Elementary School due to ignorance and the same was carried out inadvertently in the SSLC book and in the service register as well. It is also the case of the appellants that the respondent was asked to submit his application in the prescribed format and thereafter, his papers were sent to the Board of Revenue for enquiry and the Secretary of the Board of Revenue, after conducting a detailed enquiry has found that the respondent's real date of birth is 23.03.1954 and the same was given as 06.01.1952 and hence, recommended for alteration of date of birth from 06.01.1952 to 23.03.1954, vide proceedings dated 11.11.1980. 3. It is the further case of the appellants that while the matter is pending consideration before the Department of Treasuries and Accounts for alteration of the petitioner's date of birth, he got appointment as P.G. Assistant in the Department of Education on 22.08.1980 and appointed as Post Graduate Assistant in Zoology at Government Higher Secondary School, Pudur, Tirunelveli District and his services in the said post was regularized with effect from 27.09.1980, vide order dated 29.08.1986. It is also the case of the appellants that the respondent has made a representation to the Director of School Education on 24.11.1999 seeking alteration of his date of birth in the service register and the same was rejected, as per proceedings dated 01.07.2009, against which, the respondent has filed W.P.No.23900 of 2009. 4. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the order, dated 01.07.2009 and directed the second respondent therein, who is the second appellant herein, to alter the writ petitioner's date of birth from 06.01.1952 to 23.03.1954 in his service register and allow him to retire from service with all benefits including re-induction in service with service and monetary benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 5. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. Apart from the other things, the main contention raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader is that as per Madras Education Rules, admission to First Standard should be given at the age of five years as on 31st July of the year and in the present case on hand, the date of birth of the respondent was recorded as 06.01.1952 and he had completed five years of age on 05.08.1957 and if he was born on 23.03.1954, he would complete only three years as on 05.08.1957 and if so, he could not be admitted in 1st Standard in 1957. 7. It is seen from the perusal of the materials that if the date of birth of the writ petitioner is taken into consideration as 23.03.1954, he is aged about three years and hence, he is not eligible for admission in the First Standard. That is why, the date of birth was given at the time of admission as 06.01.1952. Now after enjoying the recorded date of birth in the school records, when the respondent came to employment, to gain two years of service, the respondent came forward with the plea of alteration of his date of birth on the ground that at the time of entering into the School his parents have wrongly given his date of birth as 06.01.1952. 8. 8. It is settled principle of law that a person cannot give one date of birth for admission into school and another date of birth to enter into the service. The respondent cannot change his date of birth to suit his convenience. Therefore, we are unable to appreciate the reasons adopted by the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. The writ appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.