Madras High Court
S.Ramya vs The Director on 3 August, 2021
W.P.No.1433/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P. No.1433 of 2021
S.Ramya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director
Directorate of School Education,
No.17 College Road,
Thousand Lights West
Thousand Lights,
Subba Road Avenue
Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 008.
2.The Director of Government Examinations,
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Ponneri
Tiruvallur District.
4.The Commissioner
Corporation of Greater Chennai
Park Town,
Chennai 600 003. ... Respondents
(R4 is impleaded vide
order of this Court dated 10.02.2021
in WMP No.2461/2021)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1433/2021
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to correct the date
of birth of the petitioner regarding the order issued by the 3rd respondent, the
District Educational Officer, viz., Na.Ka.No.1946/A4/2020 dated 11.01.2021 to
get the court order for correction in respect of correcting the petitioner's date of
birth in the marksheet of Secondary School leaving Certificate, Higher
Secondary Course Certificate and Transfer Certificate as 07.08.1995.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Madhanraj
For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan for R1 to R3
Ms.P.T.Ramadevi for R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents 1 to 3 to correct the date of birth of the petitioner
from 07.06.1995 to 07.08.1995 in the mark sheet of the Secondary School
Leaving Certificate, Higher Secondary Course Certificate and the Transfer
Certificate.
2.The case of the petitioner is that she was born on 07.08.1995 and
to substantiate the same, the petitioner is relying upon the birth certificate
issued by the 4th respondent, which has been registered on 16.08.1995 and it
is found that the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 07.08.1995.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1433/2021
When the petitioner was admitted in the school, it seems that her date of birth
was wrongly given as 07.06.1995 and as a result of the same, all her
certificates pertaining to 10th and 12th standard including the Transfer
Certificate reflects the date of birth as 07.06.1995.
3.The petitioner underwent a professional course in Russia and she
has completed the course and claims to be a qualified Medical Doctor. Even in
the certificate that was given by the concerned University, the date of birth of
the petitioner was mentioned as 07.08.1995.
4.The petitioner applied for Foreign Medical Graduate Examination
(FMGE) conducted by the National Medical Commission and only if the
petitioner clears this exam, the petitioner will be given license for practising as
a Doctor in India. When the petitioner applied for this exam, the discrepancy
in the date of birth was pointed out. The petitioner therefore submitted a
representation requesting for the correction of the date of birth in the mark
sheets and the transfer certificate. The third respondent, on receipt of the
same, has issued a memo dated 11.01.2021 to the effect that the petitioner
has to get the date of birth corrected only before the competent Court.
Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1433/2021
5. Heard Mr.G.Mathan Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents 1 to 3 and Ms.P.T.Ramadevi, learned standing counsel appearing
on behalf of the fourth respondent.
6. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit and a specific
stand has been taken in the counter affidavit to the effect that the date of birth
provided by the petitioner in the School has only been incorporated in the
Marksheets and Transfer Certificate. That apart, the third respondent has also
placed reliance upon Rule 5 of the SSLC Scheme, which makes it clear that
alteration in the date of birth will not be entertained after a student has
completed the course and appeared in the examination. Therefore, the third
respondent has taken a stand that the respondent cannot carry out any
alteration in the mark sheets or in the transfer certificate pertaining to the date
of birth of the petitioner.
7.The date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as
07.08.1995 in the birth certificate issued by the 4th respondent. The same date
of birth is found in almost all the documents except the mark sheets and the
transfer certificate. There is only a variation with regard to the month and the
date and the year perfectly tallies with the original birth certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1433/2021
8. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered
by the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14645/2020 dated
29.10.2020. This Court had relied upon the earlier order passed in
W.P.No.9340/2009 in this regard. The relevant portions in the order is
extracted hereunder:
“7. The relevant portions in the order passed
by this Court in W.P.No.6026 of 2020 dated
10.03.2020 is extracted hereunder:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1433/2021
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.
“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 cancelling
the entry) as provided in section 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 subrule(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 sub
rule(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 Section 15 upon
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1433/2021
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 sub-
rules (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)
(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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1433/2021
under 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 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1433/2021
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 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, this Writ 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1433/2021
the birth certificate issued by the competent authority. ”
8. In view of the above discussion, there
shall be a direction to the second respondent to
complete the preliminary enquiry and submit a
report before the first respondent within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The first respondent, on receipt of the report
from the second respondent, shall take necessary
action in line with the earlier directions issued by
this Court, within a period of six weeks thereafter.”
9. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to
submit a fresh representation to the second respondent along with all the
relevant documents. The second respondent, on receipt of the same, shall
make the necessary changes in the date of birth as 07.08.1995 in the mark
sheet of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, Higher Secondary Course
Certificate and the Transfer Certificate. This process shall be completed by
the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
10. This writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs.
03.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Office to Note: Order Copy on 06.08.2021
RR
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1433/2021
1.The Director
Directorate of School Education,
No.17 College Road,
Thousand Lights West
Thousand Lights,
Subba Road Avenue
Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 008.
2.The Director of Government Examinations,
DPI Campus,
College Road,
Chennai.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Ponneri
Tiruvallur District.
4.The Commissioner
Corporation of Greater Chennai
Park Town,
Chennai 600 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1433/2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
RR
W.P.No.1433 of 2021
03.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
