Madras High Court
S.Nagendramani vs The Managing Director on 19 October, 2023
W.P(MD).No.25410 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 19.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.25410 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD).No.21585 of 2023
S.Nagendramani ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The Managing Director
TWAD Board
Chepauk, Chennai 5
2.The Superintendent of Engineer
TWAD Madurai Office
Madurai ...Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the record pertaining to
the impugned order of the second respondent letter Ka.No.
1785/Ko.u.ni.pe/ni.ul/2023 dated 25.08.2023 and quash the same and
subsequently directing the respondents to enter the correct date of birth
02.06.1965 in the service register.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunnithy
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijaykarthikeyan
TWAD Board Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
W.P(MD).No.25410 of 2023
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by an Executive Engineer of
respondent TWAD Board seeking to quash the order dated 25.08.2023
wherein his request for alteration of the date of birth was rejected.
2.The petitioner had joined service of the respondent Board as
Technical Assistant on 29.11.2009 and he got promoted as Assistant Engineer
in the year 2010. He was further promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in
the year 2019. The petitioner at the time of joining service, he has given his
date of birth as 27.05.1964. Therefore, the petitioner about to attain
superannuation on 26.05.2024.
3.The petitioner gave a representation to the second respondent on
03.07.2023 requesting him to alter his date of birth from 27.05.1964 to
02.06.1965 in the service register. The petitioner addressed another
communication on 19.07.2023 seeking the same relief. The said request was
rejected under the impugned order by the second respondent herein on
25.08.2023 on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted his request for
alteration of date of birth within a period of five years from the date of
joining service. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of
entering into service, the petitioner's date of birth was incorporated as
27.05.1964 based upon his educational certificate. He traced his date of birth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.25410 of 2023
from the government register and obtained birth certificate on 07.01.2022. He
came to know the correct date of birth belatedly and therefore, there is a delay
in making a request to the authorities to alter the date of birth. When the
petitioner is relying upon his birth certificate, the authorities ought to have
considered the same and ought not to have rejected the same citing Rule 56 of
Fundamental Rules.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that the
petitioner has offered proper explanation for approaching the authorities
belatedly. Unless the date of birth is altered and correct date of birth is
incorporated in the service register, he would be put to great hardship.
6.I have considered the submissions made on the side of the petitioner
and perused the material records.
7.Admittedly, the petitioner had joined service in the respondent Board
as Technical Assistant in the year 2009. As per Rule 56 of the Tamil Nadu
Fundamental Rules, the petitioner has to submit his application for alteration
of date of birth within a period of five years from the date of joining service.
Admittedly, the present request has been made just 10 months prior to his
attainment of superannuation.
8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2021) 12
SCC 27 (Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs.
T.P.Nataraja and others) in Paragraph No.11 has held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.25410 of 2023
“11.Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the
law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under:
(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as
per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be
claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay
and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag
end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on
attaining the age of superannuation.”
9.In the present case, the application for alteration of date of birth has
been submitted beyond the period prescribed under the relevant service rules,
especially at the fag end of service. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ
petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.10.2023.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.25410 of 2023
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
W.P.(MD).No.25410 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD).No.21585 of 2023
19.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
