Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs V. Rajendran on 7 March, 2023
WA No. 1405 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Appeal No. 1405 of 2022
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government
Higher Education Department
Secretariat,Fort St.George
Chennai – 600 009
2. The Directorate of Collegiate Education
DPI Campus, Nungambakkam
Chennai – 600 006 .. Appellants
Versus
1. V. Rajendran
2. The Commissioner
Directorate of School Education
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai – 600 006
3. The Director of Government Examinations
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai – 600 006 .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 28.04.2022 made in W.P.No.25783 of 2021.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr. R. Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr. G. Nanmaran,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr. G. Sankaran, Senior Advocate
for Mr. S. Nedunchezhian for R1
Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu
Additional Government Pleader for R2 & R3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN. J)
The appellants are the respondents 1 and 2 in WP No. 25783 of 2021 filed
by the first respondent in this appeal. They have come forward with this intra-
court appeal questioning the validity and/or correctness of the order dated
28.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge in the writ petition.
2. The first respondent herein has filed the above said WP No. 25783
of 2021 praying to quash the order dated 11.12.2019 of the fourth respondent
therein and consequently direct the respondents in the writ petition to correct his
date of birth in S.S.L.C. mark statement as 08.05.1962 as per the report/
recommendation forwarded by the third respondent therein in his communication
dated 10.09.2019 with all consequential attendant and service benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
3. The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are recapitulated
hereunder:
3.1. The case of the first respondent/writ petitioner is that he was born
on 08.05.1962 and studied Standards I to V in Elementary School, Perumalpet,
Tharangambadi Taluk from the year 1965 to 1970. In the school records, his
date of birth was correctly entered as 08.05.1962. Subsequently, when he joined
VI standard in Tharangambadi High School in the year 1970, in the admission
register, his date of birth was wrongly entered as 01.03.1958 instead of
08.05.1962. When it was brought to the notice of his father, he made a
representation and the date of birth of the first respondent was corrected. On
completion of 11th standard (old SSLC) in the year 1976, he was issued with
Transfer Certificate and SSLC Book in which his date of birth was recorded as
08.05.1962. The school authorities forwarded the details of the first respondent/
petitioner to the Directorate of Government Examination, wherein the date of
birth of the first respondent-petitioner was erroneously indicated as 01.03.1958
instead of 08.05.1962 and it was also printed in the SSLC mark sheet. The first
respondent/writ petitioner completed his studies from PUC to PhD and got
appointed as Assistant Professor on temporary basis in the year 1988. At the
time of entering into service, his date of birth was recorded as 08.05.1962 based
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
on the SSLC Book.
3.2. During the course of employment of the first respondent/writ
petitioner, on 23.11.2017, a charge memo was issued on the ground that he has
secured appointment as Assistant Professor by misquoting his date of birth as
08.05.1962 and hence he was placed under suspension. Though the 2 nd
respondent/Director of School Education has forwarded a report dated
10.09.2019 stating that all the records have been carefully verified and
recommended for correction to the date of birth in SSLC mark statement, the
third respondent herein, without considering the same, has passed the order
dated 11.12.2019, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. Challenging the
same, the above writ petition was filed.
4. The learned Judge, after hearing the counsel on either side allowed
the writ petition on 28.04.2022. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraphs
of the order dated 28.04.2022 is reproduced below:
“...14.
... i. Impugned order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the 4th
respondent is quashed.
ii. Consequently, 4th respondent is directed to correct the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
birth in the petitioners- SSLC mark statement as 08.05.1962 taking
note of the Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 719,
Education Department, dated 20.04.1976.
iii.As far as Charge Memo is concerned, since the said charge
memo came to be issued disputing the date of birth of the
petitioner, which is under challenge in the writ petition and decided
on merits, it is for the petitioner to approach the authorities
concerned in the light of the decision made in the present writ
petition. Upon receipt of the same, the 1st & 2nd respondents shall
pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible taking note of
the observations made in the present writ petition and the
Government Orders in G.O.Ms. No. 719, Education Department,
dated 20.04.1976 and communicate the same to the petitioner.”
The aforesaid order is under challenge in this writ appeal at the instance of
the educational officials.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellants would submit that based on a complaint given by one of the
classmates of the first respondent-writ petitioner by name Gopalan of Triplicane,
Chennai, addressed to the Honourable Chief Minister's Grievance Cell, the
correctness of the date of birth furnished by the first respondent/writ petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
was examined. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, if the
date of birth of the first respondent/writ petitioner is 08.05.1962, as claimed by
him, he would not have been permitted to write the public examination in XI
Standard during March 1976. For the purpose of writing the public examination,
the first respondent-writ petitioner has disclosed his date of birth as 01.03.1958.
However, after completing his old S.S.L.C. examination, he claimed that his date
of birth was wrongly entered as 01.03.1958 and his correct date of birth is
08.05.1962. After completing his old S.S.L.C. examination, a request was made
to correct his date of birth as 08.05.1962 from 01.03.1958 and accordingly, the
Headmaster of T.E.L.C. Higher Secondary School, Tharangambadi (Tranquebar)
District changed his date of birth. The learned Additional Advocate General
invited the attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 11.12.2019 of the
Directorate of Government Examinations, College Road, Chennai - 600 006,
addressed to the Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 600
006, which was impugned in the writ petition, wherein it was stated as follows:-
"Vide Letter cited reference (5), papers has been received
from your office regarding change in date of birth for Thiru. V.
Rajendran, old student of T.E.L.C. School, Tranquebar and
presently working as Associate Professor in the Department of
Physics in Presidency College, Chennai - 600 006
Last year, the same candidate has requested for change in
the date of birth for which reply has been given from your
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
Department vide letter (2) cited O.Mu.No.053522/M/C3/2018
dated 31.08.2018. If correct information were given by the
parent at the time of admission and the school authorities have
made mistakes while making the entries, then only change in
date of birth can be entertained, otherwise, changes are not
encouraged by the Department of School Education. As per
Rule 5 of the Tamil Secondary School Leaving Certificate, it is
not permitted to change the date of birth after completion of
school and after receiving the secondary school leaving
certificate.
Further, based on these records the petitioner Thiru. V.
Rajendiran's Mark Sheet has been issued with his date of birth
as 01.03.1958 and the petitioner's request has been rejected and
the same has been informed vide letter cited in ref (4) to the
Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai - 600 006. It is
patient to point out that earlier the request for change in D.O.B.
of the same person has been rejected by the Directorate of
School Education, Chennai - 600 006, vide letter dated
01.11.2019.
In the letter dated 22.11.2018 received from the
Headmaster T.E.L.C. V. Rajendran has studied from 6th
standard to 11 standard in school in 1976 V. Rajendran has
completed in 11 standard public exam with register number
124888, as per the records of the school his date of birth is
01.03.1958, the same date of birth has been registered for the
SSLC public exam also by the Department of School Education.
Further, when the date of birth of V. Rajendran was
verified with the records from the Tabulated Mark Register, it
was confirmed that his D.O.B. is 01.03.1958. It is further stated
that no required documents and records are available in this
office to change the D.O.B. of V. Rajendran as 08.05.1962 on
requested by him. Hence, the duplicate copy of the mark sheet
is sent back to your office without making any changes."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
6. By pointing out the above order, the learned Additional Advocate
General submitted that after several years, the alteration in the date of birth of
the first respondent surfaced and it only shows that he exhibited lack of
prudence in getting it corrected at the earliest point of time. Further, the belated
claim of the first respondent, if entertained, it would be cited as a precedent by
others. The order of the learned Judge in permitting alteration of date of birth
has resulted in continuing the service of the first respondent beyond the age of
superannuation, as per the available date of birth and in that event, the exchequer
will be burdened with recurring expenditure and undue financial hardship. For
the failure on the part of the first respondent in duly intimating his date of birth
at the time of his appointment, he was suspended from service and due enquiry
was conducted. At the time of departmental enquiry, the first respondent did not
reveal the date of birth of his younger brother, but disclosed only the date of
birth of his elder brother. Having regard to all the above, the fourth respondent
in the writ petition has rightly refused to alter the date of birth of the first
respondent and it is wholly justifiable. In such circumstances, the learned Judge
ought not to have interfered with the same, thus, he prayed for allowing of this
writ appeal..
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
7. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first
respondent - writ petitioner submitted that in the school records as well as
transfer certificate issued to the first respondent for having studied upto X
standard (Old SSLC) and the educational testimonials till Ph.D., disclose the
correct date of birth of the first respondent as 08.05.1962. The service register
of the first respondent/writ petitioner also reveal the correct date of birth as
08.05.1962. However, the departmental proceedings came to be initiated on the
basis of a complaint given by one R. Gopalan of Triplicane, Chennai. The
complaint proceeded on the assumption that the first respondent/writ petitioner
ought not to have been permitted to write the XI Standard (Old SSLC)
examination as per G.O. Ms. No. 1906 dated 22.08.1977 when he did not reach
the permissible age. As per the said Government Order, Rule VI (2) of the then
S.S.L.C. scheme provides that the name of an eligible student shall be included
in the nominal roll for attending the public examination, whose age is not below
15 years. In the complaint, it was complained that the first respondent/writ
petitioner, contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 1906 dated 22.08.1977 had written the XI
examination (Old SSLC). It is based on the complaint, the first respondent was
placed under suspension on 10.11.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
8. According to the learned Senior counsel for the first respondent, in
the transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster, TELC, Tharangambadi, the
date of birth is registered as 08.05.1962. As per the date of birth, during March
1976, the first respondent had taken the Public Examination under the old SSLC
pattern and results were published in April 1976. Thus, G.O. Ms. No.1906 dated
22.08.1977 was issued after the first respondent passed the old SSLC pattern and
it cannot be pressed into service. Even in the service register, based on the
documents furnished by the first respondent at the time of his appointment, his
date of birth was rightly mentioned as 08.05.1962 which was verified by the
Establishment Section and the Superintendent concerned. However, the
appellants, by placing reliance on the letter dated 31.08.2018 of the Director of
School Education assumed that the first respondent attempted to alter the date of
birth belatedly. The fact remains that the first respondent only sought to dispel
the assumption of the appellants on the basis of the complaint given by Gopalan,
his class-mate, by producing documentary evidence. Further, the first
respondent did not seek to alter the date of birth belatedly, but only sought
certified copies of the documents, which were lost by him. The appellants also
failed to take note of the proceedings dated 10.09.2019 in which the second
respondent recommended to the third respondent to correct the date of birth,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
while reiterating the correct date of birth of the first respondent as 08.05.1962.
The learned Judge, taking note of all the above, has rightly allowed the writ
petition and it calls for no interference by this Court. The learned Senior counsel
therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal.
9. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the
appellants, the learned Senior counsel for the first respondent as well as the
learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 3 and also
perused the materials placed for our consideration.
10. At the outset, we find that the date of birth of the first respondent
has been recorded as 08.05.1962 in the school records maintained by Perumalpet
Panchayat Union School, where he studied Standard I to V. This, according to
the first respondent, is his correct date of birth and it had come into existence at
the earliest point of time. However, when he joined VI Standard in
Tharangambadi High School during the year 1970, his date of birth was
erroneously entered as 01.03.1958 and this gave rise to all the disputes. Even
this was corrected by the school authorities when it was pointed out by the father
of the first respondent. Thus, in the Transfer Certificate issued by the School
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
authorities, the date of birth was rightly mentioned as 08.05.1962. Again, while
forwarding the details of the student who had written the SSLC (Old pattern)
examination, the incorrect date of birth of the first respondent viz., 01.03.1958
was forwarded to the Directorate of Government Examination. This is a mistake
on the part of the Tharangambadi School Authorities. This is further clarified
from the proceedings of the second respondent dated 10.09.2019 which reads as
follows:-
"ghh;itapy; fhQqk; rPhf ; hHp khtl;lf; fy;tp
mYtyhpd; fojj;jpy; ehfg;gl;odk; khtl;lk;.
ju';fk;gho. o/,/vy;/rp/ nky;epiyg; gs;spapd;
Kd;dhy; khzth; jpU/ t/ ,uhn$e;jpud; vd;gtuJ
giHa 11?k; tFg;g[ (Old SSLC ? 1976) kjpg;bgz;
rhd;wpjHpy; md;dhuJ gpwe;j njjp 01/03/1958 vdj;
jtwhf cs;sJ vd;Wk; ,jid 08/05/1962 vd
khw;wk; bra;J tH';FkhWk; nfhug;gl;Ls;sJ/
gs;sp jiyik Mrphpah; fojk; kw;Wk; khtl;lf;
fy;tp mYtyhpd; fojj;jpd;goa[k; Fwpg;gpl;ljpd;
mog;gilapy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
muR Mizg;go gs;spf;fy;tp ,af;FUf;F
tH';fg;gl;Ls;s mjpfhuj;jpd; mog;gilapYk;
nfhug;gl;l jpUj;jk; mtrpak; vd bjhlh;g[ila
Mtz';fs; midj;Jk; gs;spf;fy;tp ,af;Feuhy;
ed;F ghprPypf;gg;gl;L jpUj;jk; nfhhp
ghpe;Jiuf;fg;gLfpwJ/ vdnt nfhug;gl;l
jpUj;j';fis nkw;bfhz;L mry; fy;tpr;
rhd;wpid tpiutpy; mDg;gp itj;jpl muR
njh;t[fs; Jiw ,af;Feh; mth;fis fdpt[ld;
nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
11. This communication of the Director of School Education addressed
to the Director of Government Examinations would put at rest the dispute
surrounding the date of birth of the first respondent. In fact, this letter dated
10.09.2019 goes contrary to the order dated 11.12.2019 of the fourth respondent,
which was impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, it is clear that the date of
birth of the first respondent is 08.05.1962 which was correctly recorded in the
educational testimonials issued to him. The learned Judge, on appreciation of all
the above aspects, has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the first
respondent by the order impugned herein, which does not call for any
interference by this Court.
12. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
07.03.2023
dhk/rsh
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No. 1405 of 2022
R. MAHADEVAN, J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
dhk/rsh
W.A.No. 1405 of 2022
07.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
