Madras High Court
A. Palanisamy vs The District Collector on 4 November, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No. 2291 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 2291 of 2024
A. Palanisamy ..Appellant
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Cuddalore.
2.The Managing Director,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Ltd.,
Block No.1, Neyveli-607801.
3.The Deputy General Manager/E.S.
Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Ltd.,
Navarathna HR Department, Employees Service,
PRO Building, Block No.2,
Neyveli-607801. ..Respondents
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 29.09.2023 passed in W.P.No. 23811 of 2023.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
W.A No. 2291 of 2024
For Appellant: Mr. P.Sidharthan
For Respondents : Mr. P.Muthukumar, AAG - R1
Assisted by
Mr S.John J.Raja Singh, AGP
Mr.N.Nithianandam, - R2 & R3
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
This intra-court appeal assails the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 23811 of 2023. By the said order, the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed challenging the order passed by
the third respondent, rejecting the request made by the appellant/writ petitioner
to alter his date of birth in the service register as 09.11.1971 instead of
09.11.1965.
2. The appellant/writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant
Industrial Worker vide proceedings dated 06.05.2021. While in service, the
appellant/writ petitioner submitted a request to the respondent to alter his date
of birth in the service register as 09.11.1971 instead of 09.11.1965. In support of
his request, he produced an Age Certificate issued by the District Medical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
Board, Cuddalore District, certifying his date of birth as 09.11.1971. The said
request was rejected, necessitating the appellant/writ petitioner to approach this
Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by the
impugned order, dismissed the writ petition. Taking exception to the same, the
present writ appeal has been filed.
3. Mr. P. Sidharthan, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the
birth certificate was issued by the competent authority under the provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Act and the Rules, 2000
framed thereunder, which clearly establish the date of birth of the appellant/writ
petitioner as 09.11.1971. Therefore, the respondent-State was under an
obligation to alter the date of birth in the service register as provided under Rule
46 of the Fundamental Rules. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge, without considering this aspect in its proper perspective, is liable
to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
4. Mr. P. Muthukumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the first respondent, submitted that the date of birth of the appellant/writ
petitioner was entered in the service register based on the date of birth furnished
in the School Leaving Certificate, Aadhaar Card, and PAN Card. If the date of
birth of the appellant had not been registered within one year of its occurrence,
it could be registered only by an order of the Executive Magistrate under
Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000,
or by an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 293,
Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 02.12.2016. However, the
appellant, without obtaining a birth certificate in the prescribed manner,
produced an Age Certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Cuddalore,
which is not a competent authority to issue such a certificate. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge, after considering the same, rightly passed the impugned
order, which does not warrant any interference.
5. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
respondent, and the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, and have carefully
considered the materials placed on record.
6. Admittedly, the date of birth of the appellant was entered in the service
register based on the School Leaving Certificate, Aadhaar Card, and PAN Card
furnished by him. Rule 6 of the Fundamental Rules provides for alteration of the
date of birth of a government servant within five years from the date of entry
into service, provided such a request is made within that period. In the present
case, the appellant/writ petitioner sought alteration of his date of birth in the
service register relying on an Age Certificate issued by the District Medical
Board, Cuddalore District, certifying his date of birth as 09.11.1971. However,
Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000
stipulates that if any birth has not been registered within one year of its
occurrence, it shall be registered only by an order of the Executive Magistrate or
the Metropolitan Magistrate, in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 293 dated 02.12.2016.
The appellant/writ petitioner, instead of obtaining a birth certificate from the
competent authority as required under the aforesaid Rules and Government
Order, furnished an Age Certificate issued by the District Medical Board, which
is not a competent authority. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, upon due
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
consideration, rightly dismissed the writ petition but preserved liberty to the
appellant to approach the competent authority for alteration of his date of birth.
7. In light of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity and, therefore, does not warrant any interference.
8. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
(R.S.K. J.,) (H.C. J.,)
04.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
1. The District Collector,
Cuddalore.
2.The Managing Director,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Ltd.,
Block No.1, Neyveli-607801.
3.The Deputy General Manager/E.S.
Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Ltd.,
Navarathna HR Department, Employees Service,
PRO Building, Block No.2,
Neyveli-607801.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,
ak
04.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/11/2025 12:53:15 pm )
