Madras High Court

V.Balasubramanian vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 March, 2022

                                                                                W.A. No.344 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               Dated: 08.03.2022

                                                        Coram

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
                                                AND
                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

                                                W.A. No.344 of 2022

                     V.Balasubramanian                                  ...Appellant

                                                            Vs.

                     1.State of Tamil Nadu,
                       Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
                       Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection
                        Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.

                     2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
                       Thiruvannamalai Region, Thiruvannamalai.

                     3.The Joint Registrar/ Managing Director,
                       Central Co-operative bank Ltd.,
                        Thiruvannamalai District.

                     4. The Management
                        D.N.I. Kariyanthal Primary Agricultural
                        Co-operative Credit Society,
                       Thiruvannamalai.                                 ... Respondents




                     1/10


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                       W.A. No.344 of 2022

                     Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent praying to
                     set aside the order dated 18.09.2019 in W.P.No.27577 of 2019.

                                              For Appellant       : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran

                                              For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan
                                                                Additional Advocate General
                                                                Assisted by
                                                                Ms.S.Anitha
                                                                Spl. Government Pleader (Co-op)

                                                          JUDGMENT

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

The present writ appeal has been preferred against the order of the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27577 of 2019 dated 18.09.2019.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the appellant/ writ petitioner

joined as a Fertilizer Salesman Clerk on temporary basis on 11.11.1989 in

the third respondent/bank and subsequently, promoted as Senior Clerk on

01.09.2009. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner was absorbed as

permanent employee with effect from 05.08.2013 in the cadre of

"Assistant". The appellant/writ petitioner came to know that inadvertently

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. No.344 of 2022

his date of birth was entered as 03.06.1961 instead of 10.07.1964 in all his

certificates. Thereafter, the petitioner rectified the same and obtained the

corrected one from the Additional Deputy Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai and

the same was brought to the attention of the third respondent dated

19.03.2015 and 17.01.2019. Since there was no response from the 3 rd

respondent, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition on 14.02.2019 before

the 2nd respondent and the same was forwarded to the 3rd respondent vide

communication dated 29.06.2019 in Na.Ka.No.524/2019/E1 who rejected

the petitioner's representation stating that the petitioner ought to have

submitted his representation within a period of 5 years from the date of his

joining and there was long delay on the part of the petitioner, which is not

sustainable. However, taking into account the birth date entered into the

Service Register, the petitioner/appellant was permitted to retire from the

services on 30.06.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed

W.P.No.27577 of 2019 and the same was dismissed vide order dated

18.09.2016.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. No.344 of 2022

3. Challenging the same the writ petitioner/appellant had filed the

present writ appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant contended the

petitioner was appointed in the year 1989 and he became permanent

employee in the year 2013 only and the representation was given by the

employee in the year 2015 i.e.,within 5 years from the year he became an

permanent employee. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner's representation

and his Revision Petition by stating that he has given his representation

belatedly is not acceptable. He further contended that it is trite that within 5

years of service, it is open to an employee to make a request for the

alteration of the recorded date of birth and that if the request is supported by

cogent evidence to establish that the recorded date is wrong, correction has

to be made and as such the employee has also made the request only within

5 years from the date of entering into service. Hence he prays to allow this

writ appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. No.344 of 2022

5. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the

petitioner ought to have rectified the error at the initial stage and this is not

a case, where he has entered the wrong date of birth in any one of the

certificates, but in all his academic certificates from S.S.L.C till entering

into the Government Service, he has entered the incorrect date of birth. In

support of his submission he referred to Rule 49(b) and (c) of the Tamil

Nadu Sub-ordinate Services Rules, which reads as follows:

49(b) "After a person has entered service, an application to alter the date of his birth as entered in the official records shall be entertained only if such an application is made within five years of such entry into service.

49(c) Clearly states that "any application received after five years after entry into service or any application, which is not supported by entries in Secondary School Leaving Certificate, School, College or University records, birth extract from records of local bodies or military discharge certificates, shall be summarily rejected."

It is also the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that the

writ petitioner/appellant has made a representation only the year 2019 after

getting permanent status in 2013 and hence, the learned Single Judge, based

on reliance to Rule 49(b) and (c) of the Tamil Nadu Sub-ordinate Services

Rules, held thus:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. No.344 of 2022

"6. Admittedly, the petitioner entered into service in the year 1989 and was absorbed as permanent employee in the year 2013 and got altered dated of birth certificate in the year

205. However, he made representation only in the year 2019 i.e., after a lapse of five years. It is pertinent to extract Rule 49(b) and (c) of the Tamil Nadu State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, which reads as under:

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. From the reading of Rule 49(b) and (c) of the Tamil Nadu Sub-

ordinate Services Rules it is clear that, no application or representation shall

be entertained for correcting any date or age recorded after 5 years from the

date of entering into service. Be that as it may, even dehors the said rule, the

plea of the appellant that the date of birth was wrongly recorded was highly

belated. Though the date of birth has been corrected and the certificate has

been obtained from the Additional Deputy Tahsildar on 23.02.2015, the

appellant/ writ petitioner ought to have taken steps immediately after

completion of graduation or earlier.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. No.344 of 2022

8. The main object of the Rule 49 (b) and 49(c) is that correction of

the date of birth beyond a reasonable time should not be encouraged.

Permission to reopen accepted date of birth of an employee, especially on

the eve or shortly before the superannuation of the government employee,

would be an impetus to produce fabricated record. In the instant case, the

writ petitioner/appellant has taken nearly 51 years to rectify his date of

birth i.e., 10.07.1964 which is not sustainable.

9. Normally, in public services, while entering into the service the

date of exit, viz., date of superannuation or retirement would be very well

known to an employee. That is why, the date of birth is recorded in the

relevant register or Service Register, relating to the individual concerned.

This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed

the age of retirement and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the

service records. But, of late it is reported, that many public servants, on the

eve of their retirement raise a dispute about their date of birth, either by

invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India or by filing applications before the concerned Administrative

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. No.344 of 2022

Tribunals, or even filing suits for adjudication as to whether the date of birth

is were correct or not.

10. One of us (SVNJ) in an identical issue, while sitting single in the

case of W.P(MD).No.15490 of 2020 dated 06.11.2020 [ P.Jeyachandran

vs The Director of School Education Department] , observed as follows:

5. This Court is of the considered view that now the petitioner has crossed 60 years based on his date of birth, namely, 06.06.1960. Now, after several decades, he wants to change his date of birth as 23.09.1963. According to the petitioner, school record shows his date of birth as 06.06.1960, whereas Birth Certificate issued by the fourth respondent Corporation shows as 23.09.1963. Now a days almost all persons have two date of births and the request of alteration of date of birth after joining government service is mushrooming on the very safe ground that the parents had furnished the wrong date of birth at the time of school admission during childhood. Though there is no much harm in having two date of births the actual date of birth must be disclosed at least for marriage purposes so as to avoid difference of opinion /suppression of facts to the better half in future.

6. The Date of birth entered in corporation record or municipality etc., may be correct. But the date of birth given to the school alone has to be taken into account for schooling, employment etc. If the alteration of date of birth is considered suitably based on the records found in Corporation/Municipality and later if it is found that upon consideration the person seeking such alteration was not eligible to be admitted in the School, entire qualification would become invalid and appointment secured on the basis of the said qualification would be non est in the eye of law and he /she can be removed from service without giving any terminal benefits.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A. No.344 of 2022

11. In this case, it is stated by the respondent herein that the

appellant/ writ petitioner has cleared S.S.L.C only at the age of 22. In our

opinion the order passed by the learned Single Judge holds good, warranting

no interference by this Court.

12.In the result, finding no merit in this writ appeal, the same stands

dismissed. We think it appropriate to state here that there is no harm in

having two dates of birth one for the purpose of official records, which

cannot be altered in any event, and the other one for marriage purposes. No

costs.

(S.V.N., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 08.03.2022 Speaking order : Yes/No Index: Yes/No smn/mka

To: