Madras High Court
R.Gurusamy vs The Chief Engineer Personnel on 20 September, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.A(MD) No.1311 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 20.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A(MD) No.1311 of 2018
R.Gurusamy ...Appellant
Vs.
1.The Chief Engineer Personnel,
TANGEDCO, 8th Floor
N.P.K.R.R. Maligai,
144, Annasalai,
Chennai02.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
M.E.D.C/METRO,
TANGEDCO,
K.Pudur, Madurai-7. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of Letters Patent Act to set aside
order dated 30.01.2018 made in W.P(MD) No.300 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Prasanna Vinoth
For R-1 : Mr.S.Arivalagan, Standing Counsel
For R-2 :Mr. G.Mathusuthanan, Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
W.A(MD) No.1311 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The writ appeal has been filed questioning the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 30.01.2018 in W.P(MD) No. 300 of 2018
2. The writ petitioner had been appointed in the office of the first
respondent/Chief Engineer, Personnel,TANGEDCO as Technical Assistant on
03.09.1993. It is his contention that his date of birth 04.09.1970 but he found
that it had been entered in the service register as 20.05.1970. It is the case of
the appellant that both before the learned Single Judge and also before this
Court he had given an applicaion on 10.10.1997 seeking correction of his date
of birth. It is contended that this application has been given to the first
respondent/ Chief Engineer, personnel/TANGEDCO, but however proof for
giving such representation had not been filed either before the learned Single
Judge or before this Court. It had been stated by the appellant that he had
thereafter given a reminder after 19 years on 25.02.2016. The representation
was rejected by order dated 14.03.2016 by the second respondent/ M.E.D.C/
METRO/ TANGEDCO/K.Pudhur, Madurai.
3. The writ petition should have been filed in the nature of certiorarified
questioning that particular order dated 14.03.2016 but was filed in the nature
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of mandamus seeking a direction against the respondents to change the date of
birth of the petitioner from 20.05.1970 to 04.09.1970.
4. When a quasi judicial order had been passed by the authorities, then
such order should be questioned. A writ of Mandamus would not lie in the teeth
of the order dated 14.03.2016. Additionally, it is also seen that the thrust of the
case of the appellant was that he had given a representation on 10.10.1997 but
no proof had been furnished either before the learned Single Judge or before
this Court for forwarding of such application .
5. The learned Single Judge had therefore given two reasons for
dismissing the writ petition namely that there had been no proof for giving
representation within the stipulated period of five years from the date of joining
service and that the order dated 14.03.2016 had not been challenged.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the order of the
second respondent dated 14.03.2016 had been wrongly passed without calling
for records from the office of the first respondent when the application had
been given to the office of the first respondent. But however no explanation is
given as to why the appellant had not taken up the issue from 10.10.1997 till
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2016 when he had, according to him given a reminder. There is no proof
produced before the Court for giving the representation dated 10.10.1997.
7. The law is clear that a request for change in date of birth should be
considered, the request should be given within a period of five years from the
date of joining service There is no proof produced for giving representation
within the period of five years in the instant case. Hence we are not inclined to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
8. The writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
9. If the petitioner is able to obtain credible proof for forwarding the
representation dated 10.10.1997 he has every right to take up the issue in
manner known to law.
(C .V.K.,J.) (J.S.N.P,,J.)
20.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
aav
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
aav
20.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
