Madras High Court
S.R.Singara Subramanian vs The Secretary on 21 September, 2023
WP.No.28097/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 21.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
WP.No.28097/2017 & WMP.Nos.30186 & 30187/2017
S.R.Singara Subramanian ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary
Higher Education Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Annamalai University
rep.by its Registrar,
Annamalai Nagar -608 002.
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
Prayer : - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records on the file of the 2nd respondent herein in (1) University Order
No.556/2017 (C) dated 07.04.2017 (2) Office Memorandum
No.C.C2/4253-99/2017 dated 11.05.2017 and (3) Office Memorandum
No.C.C2/4253-99/2017 dated 17.06.2017 and quash the same and to issue
consequential direction to the respondents to restore the order in
U.O.No.846/2002 dated 6.11.2002 recording petitioner date of birth as
07.07.1967 instead of 07.04.2017 and grant him all consequential benefits.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28097/2017
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dharani
For R1 : Mr. R.Neethi Perumal, GA
For R2 : Mr.E.C.Ramesh
Standing Counsel
ORDER
(1) The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified
mandamus seeking records of the 2nd respondent, Registrar,
Annamalai University in the order dated 07.04.2017 and an Office
Memorandum dated 11.05.2017 and a further Office Memorandum
dated 17.06.2017 and set aside all the aforementioned orders / Office
Memorandums and restore the earlier order of the 2nd respondent
dated 06.11.2002 by which the Date of Birth of the petitioner was
recorded as 07.07.1967 instead of 07.04.1967.
(2) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated
that the petitioner had joined Annamalai University in January 1999
as Lecturer in Geology Department. He had then, immediately after
joining, on 29.05.2001, within five years from the date of joining, had
forwarded an Extract of Birth Certificate obtained from the Tiruppur
Municipality which reflected that his Date of Birth was actually
07.07.1967. Placing this document before the 2nd respondent, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28097/2017
sought for correction of the Date of Birth in his Service Records from
07.04.1967 to 07.07.1967. The 2nd respondent had stated that the
change in the Date of Birth shall be recorded if documentary evidence
such as SSLC Book as corrected or a Court order is produced by him.
This was by a communication dated 17.07.2001. The petitioner then,
though he had a Birth Certificate issued by the Tiruppur Municipality,
had filed OS.No.47/2002 before the District Munsif Court at
Chidambaram and obtained a decree that his actual Date of Birth wa
07.07.1967 and not 07.04.1967. It must be straightaway stated that
such decree would not come to the assistance of the petitioner herein
consequent to the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in
WA.No.2261/2019 dated 31.07.2019, wherein it had been stated that
the procedure to correct the Date of Birth had been stated in Section
59[1] of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants [Conditions of Service]
Act, 2016, and the stipulations therein do not include obtaining a
decree from a Civil Court. A decree from a Civil Court would not be
of any assistance for any applicant seeking to change his/her Date of
Birth. Thereafter, the petitioner, after obtaining such decree, had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28097/2017
again made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 26.07.2002. The
2nd respondent had passed an order on 07.04.2017 rejecting the
petitioner's representation by stating that the request of the petitioner
cannot be acceded to and recorrected the Date of Birth from
07.07.1967 to 07.04.1967 in the records of the University.
Consequential orders were also passed accordingly. Questioning these
orders, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition.
(3) The entire issue revolves around Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants [Conditions of Service] Act, 2016. The said
provision relates to alteration of Date of Birth. The petitioner had
given his application within five years from the date of his entry into
service. Therefore, Section 59[1] and Section 59[2] of the said Act
alone would apply to the petitioner herein. Section 59[3] of the Act
relates to a situation where an application is filed after five years of
entry into service.
(4) The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the appointment of the petitioner was on 26.04.1998 and the first
application given by the petitioner was on 29.05.2001 and after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28097/2017
obtaining the Court decree, the petitioner had given a further
representation on 26.07.2002. Both these applications are made
within five years from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner
herein.
(5) Sections 59[1] and 59[2] of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants
[Conditions of Service] Act, 2016, are as follows:-
''59.Alteration of Date of Birth:-
(1)If, at the time of appointment, a candidate
claims that his date of birth is different from that
entered in his S.S.L.C. or Matriculation Register or
school records, he shall make an application to the
Commission in cases where the appointment is made
in consultation with the Commission and, in other
cases, to the appointing authority stating the evidence
on which he relies and explaining how the mistake
occurred. The application shall be forwarded to the
Commissioner of Revenue Administration for report
after investigation by an officer not below the rank of
a Deputy Collector and, on receipt of the report, the
Commission or the appointing authority, as the case
may be, shall decide whether the alteration of date of
birth may be permitted or the application may be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28097/2017
rejected:
Provided that in case of a candidate who was
born outside the State of Tamil Nadu, the investigation
through the Commissioner of Revenue Administration
shall be dispensed with and the Commission or the
appointing authority, as the case may be, shall
examine and scrutinize the records that may be
produced by the candidate and shall decide whether
the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the
application may be rejected.
(2)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. Such an application shall be made to the
authority competent to make an appointment to the
post held by the applicant at the time of his
application and shall be disposed of in accordance
with the procedure laid down in sub-section (1).''
(6) The procedure under Section 59[1] contemplates that the application
given by the petitioner with the Extract of the Birth Certificate should
be forwarded by the respondents to the Commissioner of Revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28097/2017
Administration for investigation of the correctness of the said Birth
Certificate by an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Collector
and thereafter, on receiving such report, necessary orders should be
passed. This would therefore, imply that the Birth Extract which the
petitioner relies on, namely, the Birth Extract issued by the Tiruppur
Municipality, will have to be examined by the 2nd respondent in
accordance with the provisions under Section 59[1]. The respondents
have to forward the Birth Extract to the appropriate authority, namely,
Commissioner of Revenue Administration and the said Commissioner
of Revenue Administration must take the assistance of an officer not
below the rank of Deputy Collector, who should verify this particular
Birth Extract with the originals in the Tiruppur Municipality and
thereafter, give a Report and on the basis of such Report, the 2nd
respondent should pass appropriate orders.
(7) The 2nd respondent had not undertaken such procedure. On the other
hand, the 2nd respondent had initially stated that the petitioner should
get an order of a Court declaring his Date of Birth. Thought he
petitioner had obtained such an order of a Court, that order is null and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28097/2017
void in view of the pronouncement of the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court dated 31.07.2019 made in WA.No2261/2019,
referred supra. The Impugned Order had proceeded on the basis that
the order of the Court would not come to the assistance of the
petitioner herein which is correct. But the respondents are also under
obligation to examine the veracity of the Birth Certificate.
(8) Let appropriate procedure as enunciated under Section 59[1] of the
Act be followed and let necessary investigation be done about the
veracity of the Birth Certificate produced by the petitioner herein and
thereafter, the respondents may pass a fresh order taking into
consideration, that the original application given by the petitioner was
within five years from the date of his joining in the service.
(9) In view of this particular observation made, the Impugned Orders are
set aside. An obligation is placed on the 2nd respondent, to conduct
necessary enquiry in accordance with the observations made above
and then, pass necessary orders. The 2nd respondent may endeavour
to complete the said process within a period of six months from the
date of a receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28097/2017
(10) The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.09.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Secretary
Higher Education Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Annamalai University
rep.by its Registrar,
Annamalai Nagar -608 002.
Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28097/2017
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
WP.No.28097/2017
21.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
