Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs N.P.Murugesan on 28 July, 2021
W.A.No.1464/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.1464 of 2021
& C.M.P.No.9140 of 2021
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The Joint Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary),
Chennai-6. .. Appellants/Respondents 1& 2
Vs.
1. N.P.Murugesan .. Respondent 1/Petitioner
2. The Joint Director
(Revenue Administration),
Department of Revenue Administration
Disaster Management and Mitigation,
Ezhilagam, Chennai-5.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Attur, Salem District. .. Respondents 2 & 3/
Respondents 3 & 4
***
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against
the order dated 04.02.2020 in W.P.No.22807 of 2010.
***
For Appellants : Mr.C.Jayaprakash
State Government Counsel
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1/7
W.A.No.1464/2021
For Respondent-1: Mr.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel
for Ms.C.Uma
For Respondents 2: No Appearance
and 3
JUDGEMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The only question raised by the appellants in this appeal is
whether the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.02.2020 in
W.P.No.22807 of 2010 allowing the claim of the writ petitioner to
correct his date of birth in the Service Register is valid.
2. The claim of the writ petitioner is that he was born on
27.03.1972, but his parents, who were not educated, registered his date
of birth as 15.06.1971 at the time of his admission in School. After
education, he joined the appellants Department as B.T. Assistant on
18.07.2002. Subsequently, when he came to know that his date of
birth was wrongly registered, he sought the appellants to alter the same
correctly. His case was referred to the third respondent herein, who in
turn, after due enquiry, admitted the genuineness in the claim.
However, the request of the writ petitioner was sought to be rejected by
the authorities on 10.07.2009, based on which, the second appellant
rejected his claim via order dated 16.11.2009 and the same was put to
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 2/7
W.A.No.1464/2021
challenge before the writ Court. Aggrieved by the order of the writ
Court allowing the said claim, the appellants instituted the instant
appeal.
3. Learned State Government Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants contended that the date of birth given by the writ
petitioner was alone recorded in his Service Register and without
assigning any valid reason, he sought to alter the same. It is his
further submission that if the claim of the writ petitioner is admitted, he
could not have joined the 1st Standard and completed the S.S.L.C., in
the age limit prescribed by the Government for the same and thus,
appreciating all these aspects, the revenue authorities informed the
Director of School Education to negative the claim of the writ petitioner,
which has been implemented by the second respondent. But without
going into the merits of all those submissions, the Writ Court allowed
the prayer and thereby committed serious error in passing the order
impugned.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first
respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the writ Court, after throughly
scrutinizing the material documents placed by the writ petitioner, came
to the conclusion that the authorities having admitted the correctness of
the claim, ought not to have passed the order impugned therein merely
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 3/7
W.A.No.1464/2021
saying that it would amount to availing the special concession twice. It
is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent that when the authorities found the claim of the writ
petitioner to be correct, they ought to have granted the relief to the writ
petitioner and their failure was set right by this Court and there is no
ground, much less, substantial ground raised by the appellants to
reverse the impugned order.
5. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the
materials placed before us.
6. A perusal of the communication sent by the second
respondent herein to the Director of School Education would make it
crystal clear that the third respondent herein recommended the claim of
the writ petitioner, as the said authority found that the writ petitioner's
date of birth as per the records is 27.03.1972 and there is no addition,
deletion or ratification of the same in the register. However, the second
respondent proceed to negate the claim of the writ petitioner on the
ground that if his altered date of birth is taken into account, he would
not have had the eligibility to get admission in the first standard and
thus, he would not have completed SSLC in the age limit, as has been
prescribed in the Government Orders governing the field. The other
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 4/7
W.A.No.1464/2021
ground for rejection was that in the LIC policy dated 24.07.2006 also,
his date of birth was mentioned as 27.03.1972.
7. Admittedly, there is no addition, deletion or ratification in
the register maintained by the Government with respect to the writ
petitioner's date of birth. The writ petitioner applied for correction of
date of birth within the time limit prescribed under Rule 49 of the Tamil
Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, i.e., within five years of
joining into the service. The act of furnishing the wrong date of birth in
the Service Register, so also in the LIC policy dated 24.07.2006, was
before his knowledge about the correct date of birth, and the same
cannot be put against the writ petitioner. In such circumstances, the
request of the writ petitioner cannot be rejected like this.
8. Though the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V.
C.Ramasamy, to contend that the writ petitioner's claim ought to have
been rejected by the writ Court, this Court is of the view that it is open
to the appellants to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, if
they have any material to prove that the writ petitioner had attained
some advantage in appointment on account of his original date of birth,
which was recorded in the Service Register. Thus, the appellants, while
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 5/7
W.A.No.1464/2021
doing so, have to find out the factual position as in the above judgment
in the case of the writ petitioner also.
9. In view of the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the
appeal and it is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed
confirming the order of the writ Court. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.S.N., J.) (K.R., J.)
28.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
gg
To
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Joint Director of School Education,
(Higher Secondary), Chennai-6.
3. The Joint Director
(Revenue Administration),
Department of Revenue Administration
Disaster Management and Mitigation,
Ezhilagam, Chennai-5.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Attur, Salem District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 6/7
W.A.No.1464/2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg
W.A.No.1464 of 2021
28.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 7/7
