Madras High Court
A.Kalpanadevi vs The Director Of School Education on 14 October, 2022
W.A.No.2286 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.10.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2286 of 2022
A.Kalpanadevi .. Appellant
vs
1.The Director of School Education,
Chennai – 6.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Pollachi.
3.The Principal,
Municipal Girls Higher Secondary School,
Kottur Road, Pollachi – 642 001
Coimbatore District. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 18.07.2022 made in W.P. No.2870 of 2015.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajendran,
Additional Government Pleader
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2286 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.,J)
1. The subject matter of this appeal pertains to alteration of
date of birth of the Appellant/Writ petitioner in the service records.
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 18.07.2022
passed in W.P. No.2870 of 2015 in and by which the prayer of the writ
petitioner was rejected by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition
was the second round of litigation.
2. The writ petitioner filed W.P.No.3172 of 2013 in which
the respondent authorities were directed to consider the
representation of the writ petitioner and pass orders. Subsequently,
by the order impugned in the present writ petition (W.P.No.2870 of
2015) dated 21.08.2014, the respondents rejected the representation.
The prayer in the writ petition is to alter the date of birth of the writ
petitioner from 11.04.1955 to 02.04.1959. The learned Single Judge,
after considering the impugned order, has rejected the writ petition on
the following grounds. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 6 and 7 of
the order dated 18.07.2022:-
“6. Public servants seeking alteration of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2286 of 2022
date of birth have to submit their applications
along with the relevant records within a period of
five years from the date of appointment. Any
application received beyond the period of five
years can be rejected summarily by the
competent authorities.
7. In the present case, the petitioner though
instituted a civil suit in the year 1982, she has not
taken steps to alter the date of birth during the
relevant point of time. She has submitted his
application beyond the period contemplated under
the provisions of the service rules. That apart, the
petitioner accepted the date of birth entered in
the school records for several years as far as the
department is concerned and during the fag end
of her retirement, she has approached the court
of law. Under these circumstances, this court
cannot consider the relief as such sought for in
the present writ petition.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2286 of 2022
3. Therefore, it can be seen that only ground on which the
prayer of the writ petitioner was rejected is that the employees are
mandated to make an application within a period of five years and in
the instant case even though the petitioner has filed civil suit in the
year 1982 she has not taken steps to alter the date of birth at the
relevant point of time.
4. The finding is contrary to the material records. The writ
petitioner entered into service with effect from 08.11.1982.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.S.No.297 of 1982 to alter her date of
birth in which the Director of School Education is also shown as the
defendant. Thereafter, he made an application to alter the date of
birth on 30.09.1987 which is within the period of five years as
contemplated under the Rules. On the said application, an order was
passed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue
Administration on 09.11.1989 detailing that when the incumbent has
filed civil suit by showing the Directorate of School Education itself as
the defendant and when the defendants have not appealed against
the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, he does not have
jurisdiction to negative the request and, therefore, the Court orders
may be complied with by the appropriate authorities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2286 of 2022
5. Thereafter, once again, the Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has passed an order on
30.12.1989 to the effect that the writ petitioner may be directed to
approach the Director of School Education to make alteration of date
of birth in the SSLC Book by implementing the order of the Court in
O.S.No.297 of 1982. This is how the journey of the writ petitioner
started and thereafter the writ petitioner has been continuously
pursuing the matter.
6. In the year 1988, the Director of School Education passed
an order stating that unless there is a specific decree of the Civil
Court to correct SSLC Book, they will not correct SSLC Book and
therefore returned the request of the writ petitioner. Thereafter, again
the writ petitioner made a representation bringing to the knowledge of
the authorities that she has got an order of the Civil Court and inspite
of her applying at the earliest point of time, she has been made to run
from pillar to post by passing such orders. Again on 17.01.2013, the
District Educational Officer, Pollachi passed an order inviting the
remarks of the Headmaster in three copies and requesting for the
other documents of the writ petitioner so that the request may be
carried out. Even thereafter, no orders were passed and therefore the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2286 of 2022
writ petitioner filed earlier writ petition in which this Court directed to
consider the representation of the writ petitioner and pass orders.
Thereupon, the order impugned in the writ petition was passed stating
that if the correction is carried out, it would amount to the writ
petitioner completing SSLC at the age of 14 years and therefore such
a correction cannot be made. Challenging the said order, the writ
petitioner filed the present writ petition.
7. It can be seen that the writ petitioner's request has been
rejected by the Learned Single Judge only on the ground that she did
not take any steps within the period of five years as per the Rules. For
all the facts stated above such a finding is erroneous. There are
materials on record and even in the impugned order to show that the
writ petitioner has been taking steps from the year 1987 itself and
therefore the finding of the learned single Judge that the request was
not made within the period of five years and at the relevant point of
time is contrary to the materials on record.
8. When the decree of the Civil Court was passed by
showing the appropriate authorities as the defendants and this decree
having been allowed to become final now belatedly, the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2286 of 2022
cannot contend that the SSLC Book cannot be corrected because the
writ petitioner has not attained 15 years of age at this belated point of
time. Therefore, when the earliest point of time i.e. by order dated
09.11.1989 when the Special Commissioner has indicated that the
order to be complied with unless an appeal is preferred from the order
of the Civil Court, now belatedly the respondents cannot be permitted
to turn around and reject the prayer. The factual matrix of such a
contention also is disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
Be that as it may, it was for the respondents at that point of time to
have challenged the decree by carrying it on appeal in the manner
known to law. In that view of the matter, the order of the learned
Single Judge requires interference.
9. In the result, the following order is passed:-
(i) The writ appeal in W.A.No.2286 of 2022 is allowed.
(ii) The order of learned single Judge dated 18.07.2022 in
W.P.No.2870 of 2015 is set aside.
(iii) The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner in
W.P. No.2870 of 2015 stands allowed.
(iv) The respondents are directed to carry out correction in the
date of birth of the petitioner as 02.04.1959 and accordingly calculate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2286 of 2022
the notional date of retirement. The retiral benefits and revised
pensionary benefits shall be granted to the writ petitioner.
(v) No costs.
(P.U., J) (D.B.C., J)
14.10.2022
Index:No
mmi/8
To
1.The Director of School Education,
Chennai – 6.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Pollachi.
3.The Principal,
Municipal Girls Higher Secondary School,
Kottur Road, Pollachi – 642 001
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2286 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
mmi
W.A.No.2286 of 2022
14.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
