Madras High Court
Jayaprakash vs The Secretary on 3 January, 2022
W.P.No.250 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.250 of 2022
Jayaprakash ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Government Examination,
DPI Complex,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Joint Director of School Education,
O/o. The Director of School Education,
DPI Complex,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Education Officer,
Office of the District Educational Officer,
Villupuram-1.
4. The Headmaster,
Government High School,
Rambakkam, Villupuram District.
... Respondent
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to carry out the
correction in respect of the petitioner's date of birth in the SSLC mark
statement and transfer certificate from 27.06.1993 to 26.06.1993.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Viswanth
For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abimanyu
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Court, on 09.11.2021, inadvertently, without verifying the
orders passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court for
correction of date of birth in the School records, dismissed
W.P.No.29556 of 2019. Hence, the order dated 09.11.2021 passed in
W.P.No.29556 of 2019 is recalled.
2.The case of the petitioner is that after completion of his
School education, he came to know that his actual date of birth was
not mentioned in their School records. Hence, he made
representation to the Educational Authorities seeking correction in his
date of birth, however, the Educational Authorities rejected his
request on the ground that Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
Certificate Rules prohibits alteration of date of birth after the
candidates leave the School and therefore it is beyond their
jurisdiction to make correction in the date of birth in the School
records. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.
3.The respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition is no longer res
integra and further submitted that already the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as this Court has dealt with similar issue and has held in favour
of similarly situated persons like the petitioner and in support of his
contentions, he relied upon series of decisions, which are as follows:
(i)decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2021) 7
Supreme Court Cases 535 (Jigya Yadav (Minor) Vs. Central
Board of Secondary Education);
(ii)decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.3798 of 2019 (S.Indumathi Vs. The Chief Secretary to
Government) dated 09.12.2019;
(iii)decision of this Court in W.P.No.6026 of 2020 (Maullisha
N.Y. Vs. The Director of Government Examinations) dated
10.03.2020; and
(iv)decision of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
No.9340 of 2009 (S.Rajesh Kumar Vs. The Secretary, Board of
Higher Secondary Education) dated 18.09.2012.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader
submitted that initially the parents of the petitioner made self
declaration declaring the date of birth of the petitioner and based on
the self declaration given by them, the School Authorities entered
date of birth in the School records. He further submitted that as per
Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Rules, correction
of date of birth in School records cannot be entertained after the
candidates leave the School and hence the Director and Joint Director
of School Education have given written instruction to the Educational
Authorities not to entertain alteration of date of birth and alteration in
date of birth, if any, has to be made before completing SSLC in the
respective Schools.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted
that in the present case, the petitioner completed his School
education much earlier and after lapse of several years, he made
representation seeking correction in his date of birth, which cannot be
entertained. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
decision of this Court made in W.P.No.16510 of 2018
(S.Indumathi Vs. The Chief Secretary to Government) dated
11.07.2018, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“7.It may be true that the petitioner was born
on 17.07.1997, but for the purpose of entry
into the school, the parents would have given
the Date of Birth of the petitioner as
17.05.1997. If the actual Date of Birth
17.07.1997 is taken into account, then the
entire qualification obtained by the petitioner/
candidate will have to go, as she could not
have been admitted in I Std. Based on the
date of birth, namely 17.07.1997. In order to
admit the petitioner/ student into the School,
the Date of Birth has been corrected as
17.05.1997 and that the same continued till
the completion of her XII Std. The student
could not, later, on the ground that the
parents have given the wrong Date of Birth
and that needs to be altered, and that for the
fault of the parents, the child/ student not be
affected, cannot be accepted. If such a
contention is going to be accepted, and that
the petitioner wants alteration of the Date of
Birth as 17.07.1997, as stated supra, the
entire qualification itself vanishes, as the
student has no locus-standi to enter I Std.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
Based on the Date of Birth as 17.07.1997.
8.In view to the above, this Court cannot
decide the issue even based on sympathy. If
such contentions are accepted, then it will
give a premium for everyone to knock at the
doors of the Court to alter the Date of Birth.
If for any reason the Date of Birth is altered
from 17.05.1997 to 17.07.1997, then the
entire qualification obtained by the petitioner
is not valid in the eye of law, i.e., she is
deemed to be not qualified at all.”
6.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
7.The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly the date of birth of
the petitioner was entered in the School records based on the self
declaration made by their parents at the time of admitting them in
the respective Schools. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner
completed his School Education much earlier and thereafter he came
to know that the date of birth was wrongly entered in the School
Leaving Certificate. The petitioner is in possession of the birth
certificates issued by the respective public Authorities and based on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
that, the petitioner made representation to the School Authorities
seeking correction in their date of birth in the School records,
however, his request was rejected on the ground that Rule 5 of the
Secondary School Leaving Certificate Rules prohibits alteration of
date of birth after the candidates leave the School and therefore it is
beyond their jurisdiction to make correction in the date of birth in the
School records.
8.It is the contention of the learned Additional Government
Pleader that as per Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate
Rules, correction in the date of birth, name, initial, have to be made
before completing SSLC examination and therefore the respondents
have no jurisdiction to make correction in the petitioner School
records. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader agree
that correction in the date of birth, name, initial, can be made by the
Educational Authorities, if such application is made before completing
SSLC.
9.The very same issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex
Court as well as this Court. For better appreciation, the relevant
portion of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
for the petitioner is extracted hereunder:
(i)Decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2021) 7
Supreme Court Cases 535 (Jigya Yadav (Minor) Vs. Central
Board of Secondary Education):
“15. To buttress the above submission,
it is urged that CBSE, being an autonomous
society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, has the power to
make, amend or delete its Rules, Regulations
and Bye-laws. Accordingly, Bye-law 69.1 was
amended as the basic record of a student is
kept by the school and the Board has no
option but to rely upon the school record. It is
further submitted that the parents of the
appellant had ample opportunity to correct the
school record and they chose not to do so. In
fact, the respondent adds, they repeatedly
filled the same particulars of their names in all
the school forms from time to time.
16. The Board has also filed elaborate written
submissions to support their case. It is
submitted that the Examination Bye-laws of
the Board are statutory in nature as they were
framed in furtherance of the powers granted
to the Board as per the Government of India
Resolution dated 1-7-1929 and deviation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
cannot be permitted from the bye-laws. As
regards the argument of violation of
fundamental rights, the Board has submitted
that there may be a fundamental right to be
identified as per the choice of an individual,
but there can be no fundamental right to claim
that the changed identity must be operative
since birth thereby compelling all including
statutory bodies to carry out changes in
documents issued by them. It is urged that
any other view would amount to misuse of
liberty and cause serious confusion at different
level. Reliance has been placed upon Rayaan
Chawla v. University of Delhi [Rayaan Chawla
v. University of Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine Del
1413 : (2020) 275 DLT 314] to support this
position.
17. The Board has further submitted that the
restrictions/conditions for change of name and
date of birth are reasonable as all the details
are supplied by the students/parents at
various stages of admissions which offers a
prima facie guarantee of genuineness. It is
submitted that change of name and date of
birth in a reckless manner could have serious
repercussions — misuse for employment,
manipulating age of the accused, etc. Reliance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
has been placed upon Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v.
State of U.P. [Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State
of U.P., (2019) 12 SCC 370 : (2019) 4 SCC
(Cri) 379] to illustrate this.
182. The impugned judgments categorically
note that the request for changes could not be
permitted as per the bye-laws. Thus, there
was no demonstration or inquiry to determine
the existence of any legal right in favour of
students. Even if we assume that courts
issued directions purely on the basis of
fundamental rights, there is no discussion or
inquiry in this regard. More so, there is no
attempt to examine the vires of the bye-laws
in light of the breach of fundamental rights, as
discussed in the initial part of this judgment.
Absent any such adverse determination on the
validity of the applicable rules, the
fundamental principle of rule of law demands
that such rules be given their intended effect.
Even if a constitutional court feels that the
case at hand is deserving of an extraordinary
remedy, it may do so using its wide powers
under Article 226 but only upon specific
appraisal of the facts of the case and after
duly demonstrating the extraordinary
character of the case. Despite holding that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
prayers are impermissible under the bye-laws,
the Courts in the present set of cases went on
to issue directions to the Board without having
any regard to the factual circumstances of the
case or to the nature of changes sought by the
students, by mechanically relying upon the
dictum in Subin Mohammed [Subin
Mohammed S. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC
OnLine Ker 39731 : (2016) 1 KLT 340] . We
must note that Subin Mohammed [Subin
Mohammed S. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC
OnLine Ker 39731 : (2016) 1 KLT 340] is not
in challenge before us but must be now
understood in terms of opinion recorded in this
judgment. Our concern is with the manner in
which mechanical reliance has been placed
upon the earlier decision for deciding cases
which involved an altogether different set of
changes.
194. As regards request for “change” of
particulars in the certificate issued by the
CBSE, it presupposes that the particulars
intended to be recorded in the CBSE certificate
are not consistent with the school records.
Such a request could be made in two different
situations. The first is on the basis of public
documents like birth certificate, Aadhaar card,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
election card, etc. and to incorporate change
in the CBSE certificate consistent therewith.
The second possibility is when the request for
change is due to the acquired name by choice
at a later point of time. That change need not
be backed by public documents pertaining to
the candidate.
195. In light of the above, in exercise of our
plenary jurisdiction, we direct the CBSE to
process the applications for correction or
change, as the case may be, in the certificate
issued by it in the respective cases under
consideration. Even other pending applications
and future applications for such request be
processed on the same lines and in particular
the conclusion and directions recorded hitherto
in paras 193 and 194, as may be applicable,
until amendment of relevant bye-laws.
Additionally, the CBSE shall take immediate
steps to amend its relevant bye-laws so as to
incorporate the stated mechanism for
recording correction or change, as the case
may be, in the certificates already issued or to
be issued by it.”
(ii)Decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
W.A.No.3798 of 2019 (S.Indumathi Vs. The Chief Secretary to
Government) dated 09.12.2019:
“12. Appellant herein has stated that
there is a discrepancy in the Date of Birth
recorded in the passport and in her school
certificate. It has been contended before us
that the discrepancy is affecting her admission
in a course, outside the Country and that the
correction of Date of Birth is exactly two
months. If any corrections are made, it will
not cause prejudice to anybody. It is also
stated that the admission to a course which
she has got abroad will get affected due to
this discrepancy.
13. We, at the moment are not entering
into the issue as to whether the order, dated
18/9/2012, passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(MD) No.9340 of 2009, followed
in W.P.No.23716 of 2014, is correct or not.
14. In view of the fact that the career of
the appellant has bright prospects, and that
she might have lose her seat because of the
discrepancy in the date of birth, we permit the
correction of date of birth to 17/7/1997 in the
peculiar facts of this case only and for the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
purpose only. This case shall not be cited as a
precedent for any other case.”
(iii) Decision of this Court in W.P.No.6026 of 2020 (Maullisha
N.Y. Vs. The Director of Government Examinations) dated
10.03.2020:
“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 Curt 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
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.
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
or canceling 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
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)
(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".
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
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 the Registration of Births
and Deaths Act, 1969, to make correction or
cancellation as the case may be, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
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.
6.The judgment that has been cited supra will
squarely apply to the facts of the present case.
7.In view of the above, there shall be a direction to
the respondents to consider the birth certificate of the
petitioner and any other documents produced by the
petitioner and deal with the representations made by the
petitioner on 07.06.2019 and 27.01.2020 and make
necessary changes in the date of birth as 11.12.1999 in
the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and the Higher
Secondary Course Certificate. The petitioner is directed to
make a fresh representation to the respondents along
with a copy of the representations dated 07.06.2019 and
27.01.2020 and a copy of this order. This exercise shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
completed by the respondents within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
(iv)Decision of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)
No.9340 of 2009 (S.Rajesh Kumar Vs. The Secretary, Board of
Higher Secondary Education) dated 18.09.2012:
“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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
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.”
10.Perusal of the decisions cited supra makes it clear that
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
in the school records, after the student leaves the secondary
education cannot be countenanced.
11.Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in exercise of the plenary
power, has issued direction to the CBSE to process the applications
for correction or change, as the case may be, in the certificate issued
by it.
12.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to extend the
same benefit to these petitioner also. The respondents are directed
to process the application made by the petitioner for making
necessary correction in the date of birth in his School records. The
petitioner is directed to produce the relevant public document to
enable the respective School Authorities to make necessary
corrections in the School records.
13.The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
10.01.2022
rli
Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
To
1. The Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Government Examination,
DPI Complex,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Joint Director of School Education,
O/o. The Director of School Education,
DPI Complex,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Education Officer,
Office of the District Educational Officer,
Villupuram-1.
4. The Headmaster,
Government High School,
Rambakkam, Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.250 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
rli
W.P.No.250 of 2022
10.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
