Madras High Court
A.Maheswari vs The Director on 17 April, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
A.Maheswari v. The Director
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court
DATED: 17.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
(Through Video Conferencing)
A.Maheswari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director,
Department of Government Examinations,
Chennai. 600 006.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Kovilpatti Educational District
Kovilpatti
3.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School
Villathikulam
Thoothukudi District ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2
to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the secondary school leaving
certificate (SSLC) as 15.03.1995 instead of 10.04.1992 and issue the same
to the petitioner within the period stipulated by this Court.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
A.Maheswari v. The Director
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents :Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus
directing the first and second respondents to correct the date of birth of the
petitioner in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate as 15.03.1995
instead of 10.04.1992.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3.The grievance of the petitioner is that an error had crept in while
noting the date of birth of the petitioner and instead of mentioning the date
of birth as 15.03.1995, the same has been mentioned as 10.04.1992 in the
Secondary School Leaving Certificate. The petitioner, in order to
substantiate the correct date of birth, has relied upon the birth certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
A.Maheswari v. The Director
issued by the competent authority and it has been registered on 21.03.1995,
which shows that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 15.03.1995.
That apart, even the transfer certificate that was issued by the third
respondent shows that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.03.1995. The
mistake is found only in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. It is
also seen from the documents that the third respondent, by a letter dated
18.01.2012, has requested the first respondent to make necessary corrections
and issue a fresh Secondary School Leaving Certificate to the petitioner
reflecting the correct date of birth.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent and a
specific stand has been taken to the effect that the date of birth that was
entered in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate was based on the
records maintained by the third respondent School.
5. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered
by the earlier judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.6026/2020 dated
10.03.2020. The relevant portions in the judgment is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
A.Maheswari v. The Director
“3.When the matter was taken up for admission, this
Court questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner as to
how the respondents can make such corrections after the
course is completed. In reply to the same, the learned counsel
brought to the notice of this Court a series of judgments
passed by this Court on the same issue, wherein, this Court
had directed the correction of date of birth. The learned
counsel specifically relied upon the judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.23716 of 2014 dated 03.03.2015. The relevant
portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder:
“5.The very same issue came up for consideration
before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.9340 of 2009 dated
18.09.2012. An identical prayer was made to rectify the date
of birth in the petitioner's service records. The respondent
Government took a stand that in view of Rule 5 of the Tamil
Nadu Secondary School Certificate Rules, the request for
correction of date of birth cannot be considered after the pupil
have left the school. This Court after elaborately considered the
Government Orders and taking note of other decisions on the
point, allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondent to
consider the birth extracts and other records of the petitioner
while considering his representation and making necessary
changes in the date of birth as in the Secondary grade School
Leaving Certificate and Higher Secondary grade School Leaving
Certificate and other certificates. The petitioner therein was
given liberty to make representation to the respondents along
with the copy of the order. At this stage it would be beneficial to
refer to the operative portion of the order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
A.Maheswari v. The Director
“27.The Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules,
2000 have come into force with effect from 01.01.2000. Rule 11, deals
with the correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and
deaths under Section 15 and that the same is extracted hereunder:
"11.Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births
and deaths under Section 15:(1)If it is reported to the Registrar that a
clerical or formal error has been made in the register or if such error is
otherwise noticed by him and if the register is in his possession, the
Registrar shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such
error has been made, he shall correct the error (by correcting or canceling
the entry) as provided in section 6 15 and shall in the case of local
authorities specified in column (1) of the Table below, send an extract of
the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the officer
specified in column (2) thereof.
“Local Authorities(1) Officers(2) Village Panchayat Village
Panchayat President Town Panchayat Executive Officer Cantonment
Executive Officer Municipality Commissioner Corporation Commissioner
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Chief Health Officer (2)In the case referred to
in sub-rule(1), if the register is not in his possession, the Registrar shall
make a report to the officer specified in the Table in sub-rule (1) and call
for the relevant register and after enquiring into the matter, if he is
satisfied that such error has been made make necessary correction.
(3)Any such correction as mentioned in subrule(2) shall be
countersigned by the officer specified in the Table in sub-rule (1) in this
behalf when the register is received from the Registrar.
(4)If any person asserts that any entry in the register of births
and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in
the manner prescribed under Section1 15 upon production by that person
a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case
made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case.
(5)Notwithstanding anything contained in subrules (1) and (4),
the Registrar shall make a report of any correction of the kind referred to
therein giving necessary details to the officer specified in the Table in sub-
rule(1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
A.Maheswari v. The Director
(6)If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any
entry in the register of births and deaths has been fraudulently or
improperly made, he shall make a report giving necessary details to the
officer authorised by the Chief Registrar by general or special order in this
behalf under Section 25 and on hearing from him take necessary action in
the matter.
(7)In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under
this rule, intimation thereof should be sent to the permanent address of the
person who has given information under section 8 or section 9".
28.Reading of the statutory provisions makes it clear that the Act
provides for correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and
deaths. The decision relied on by the respondents in their counter affidavit
rendered in W.P.No.4244 of 1965, dated 26.10.1965 and reported in
1966 MLJ 80, is prior to the introduction of Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 and the rules framed thereunder.
29.Subsidiary Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving
Certificate scheme, relied on by the respondents to contend that the
application for alteration in the date of birth will not be entertained after
a pupil had completed his course or appeared for the S.S.L.C public
examination also is much earlier to the advent of the Registration of
Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the rules framed thereunder. Needless to
say that the provisions of any Central Act, will prevail over the State Act or
the rules or regulations, framed by the latter, on the same subject.When the
statutory provisions stated supra, enable the competent authorities under 9
the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, to make correction or
cancellation as the case may be, the contention of the respondents that no
alteration is permissible in the school records, after the student leaves the
secondary education cannot be countenanced.
30.As stated supra, as per the birth certificate issued by the Sub
Registrar, Thiruvattar enclosed in the typed set of papers, the name of the
child entered in the said certificate is S.Rajesh Kumar. The date of birth
has been shown as 19.01.1975.When the statute provides for correction
or cancellation of an entry in the register of births and deaths maintained
by the Sub Registrar after coming into force of the Act, the said certificate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
A.Maheswari v. The Director
can be relied on for making necessary changes in public records which
includes the records maintained in the office of the Director of Government
Examinations Chennai. The contention of the respondents that the said
correction can be made only before the student leaves the school and not
later, cannot be accepted for the reason that any entry in the birth
certificate by virtue of registration or 10 alteration or cancellation by the
competent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,
1969, has to be given effect to otherwise, the purpose for registration or
alteration or modification would be defeated. There cannot be different
entries in the public records maintained by different authorities, one under
the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the other by the
educational authorities. The date of birth as entered in the birth extract
has to be entered in all the public records uniformly, unless and until any
statutory rules, restrict such entry, like in the case of a Government servant,
governed by the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. In the
light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to accept the
objections of the educational authorities made on the basis of the
Subsidiary rules framed before the introduction of the Central Act, 1969.
31.In the light of the decision made in W.P.No.9800 of 2009,
dated 21.10.2009 in R.Deepak Vs.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniform
Service Recruitment Board, Chennai and two others, the certificate issued
by the competent authority under Registration of Births and Deaths Act,
1969, and other supporting documents relied on by the present writ
petitioner has to be considered.
32.For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. There
shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the birth extract and
other evidence produced by the petitioner while considering his
representation, dated 03.09.2009 and make necessary changes, in the
date of birth as 19.01.1975 in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate
and the Higher Secondary Course and other certificates. The petitioner is
at liberty to make a representation to the respondents along with a copy of
this order and that he shall produce the original certificates for making
necessary corrections. No costs.”
6.The decision referred supra is squarely applicable to
the facts of the case on hand and in the instant case, the only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
A.Maheswari v. The Director
ground for rejection is that the petitioner cannot seek for
alteration of School Certificates after he has completed the
studies. Since similar issue has already been decided by this
Court, thisWrit Petition has to be necessarily allowed.
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondents submitted that Rule 5 of the Tamil
Nadu Secondary School Certificate Rules prohibits such
alteration of date of birth after the candidate leaves the school
and therefore, it will be beyond the jurisdiction of the
respondents to make such corrections in the School Leaving
Certificate.
5.The objections that have been raised by the learned
Government Advocate, have been answered in the judgment
that has been cited supra. Apart from the above judgment, this
Court is taking a very consistent view that, after coming into
the force of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths
Rules, 2000 w.e.f. 01.01.2000, such corrections can be carried
out in the school records when they are found to be in
variance with the birth certificate issued by the competent
authority.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
A.Maheswari v. The Director
6. It is clear from the above that the Secondary School Leaving
Certificate must be in line with the birth certificate and it must reflect the
correct date of birth. That apart, after coming into force of the Tamil Nadu
Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000, such corrections can be
carried out in the school records, when they are found in variance with the
birth certificate issued by the competent authority.
7. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the first
respondent to consider the birth certificate of the petitioner and any other
documents produced by the petitioner and deal with the representation dated
18.07.2014 and make necessary changes in the date of birth in the
Secondary School Leaving Certificate as 15.03.1995 instead of 10.04.1992.
8. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the first
respondent along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of this
order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
A.Maheswari v. The Director
9. The first respondent shall complete the exercise within six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No
costs.
17.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
RR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Director,
Department of Government Examinations,
Chennai. 600 006.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Kovilpatti Educational District
Kovilpatti
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
A.Maheswari v. The Director
3.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School
Villathikulam
Thoothukudi District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
A.Maheswari v. The Director
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RR
W.P.(MD)No.17107 of 2014
17.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
