Writ Appeal No. 291 of 2011 · Madras High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The writ appeal is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.... Appellants/RespondentsvsThiru S.Selvanathan, Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Anandamangalam, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondent/PetitionerPrayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the order, dated 26.07.2010, made in W.P.No.23900 of 2009.Petition presented under Article 226 of the…
- Para 88. It is settled principle of law that a person cannot give one date of birth for admission into school and another date of birth to enter into the service. The respondent cannot change his date of birth to suit his convenience. Therefore, we are…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.04.2012CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAOandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALWrit Appeal No.291 of 20111.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6.
The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.... Appellants/RespondentsvsThiru S.Selvanathan, Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Anandamangalam, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondent/PetitionerPrayer:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the order, dated 26.07.2010, made in W.P.No.23900 of 2009.Petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India toissue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent issued in Pa.Moo. No.17378/W.1/E1/2000 dated1.7.2009 and quash the same and issue a consequential direction to the second respondent to alter the date of birth of the petitioner as23.03.1954 from 6.01.1952 as found in the service register of the petitioner and accordingly allow the petitioner to retire from service on 24.03.2012 with service and monetary benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant: Mrs.M.E.Rani Selvam, Addl.
Govt. Pleader. For Respondent: Mr.R.SaseetharanJ U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Justice Elipe Dharma Rao)This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated26.07.2010, made in W.P.No.23900 of 2009, whereby a direction was issued to the second respondent therein, who is the second appellant herein, to alter the writ petitioner's date of birth from 06.01.1952to 23.03.1954 in his service register and allow him to retire from service with all benefits including re-induction in service with service and monetary benefits. 2. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 07.06.1974 in Sub-Treassury, Tittagudi, South Arcot District, vide order of the Director and Treasuries and Accounts, Madras, dated 25.02.1974, based on the selection made by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and within a period of five years of entry into service, he made arepresentation, dated 03.08.1978, to the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Madras, for alteration of his date of birth in the service register as 23.03.1954 from 06.01.1952 on the ground that his date of birth was wrongly given as 06.01.1952 by his parents at the time of admission into Elementary School due to ignorance and the same was carried out inadvertently in the SSLC book and in the service register as well.
It is also the case of the appellants that the respondent was asked to submit his application in the prescribed format and thereafter, his papers were sent to the Board of Revenuefor enquiry and the Secretary of the Board of Revenue, after conducting a detailed enquiry has found that the respondent's real date of birth is 23.03.1954 and the same was given as 06.01.1952 and hence, recommended for alteration of date of birth from 06.01.1952 to23.03.1954, vide proceedings dated 11.11.1980.3.It is the further case of the appellants that while the matteris pending consideration before the Department of Treasuries and Accounts for alteration of the petitioner's date of birth, he got appointment as P.G. Assistant in the Department of Education on22.08.1980 and appointed as Post Graduate Assistant in Zoology at Government Higher Secondary School, Pudur, Tirunelveli District and his services in the said post was regularized with effect from27.09.1980, vide order dated 29.08.1986.
It is also the case of the appellants that the respondent has made a representation to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Director of School Education on 24.11.1999 seeking alteration of his date of birth in the service register and the same was rejected, asper proceedings dated 01.07.2009, against which, the respondent has filed W.P.No.23900 of 2009.
The learned single Judge, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the order, dated 01.07.2009 and directed the second respondent therein, who is the second appellant herein, to alter the writ petitioner's date of birth from 06.01.1952to 23.03.1954 in his service register and allow him to retire from service with all benefits including re-induction in service with service and monetary benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed.
Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.
We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. Apart from the other things, the main contention raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader is that as per Madras EducationRules, admission to First Standard should be given at the age of five years as on 31st July of the year and in the present case on hand, the date of birth of the respondent was recorded as 06.01.1952 and he had completed five years of age on 05.08.1957 and if he was born on23.03.1954, he would complete only three years as on 05.08.1957 and if so, he could not be admitted in 1st Standard in 1957.
It is seen from the perusal of the materials that if the date of birth of the writ petitioner is taken into consideration as23.03.1954, he is aged about three years and hence, he is not eligible for admission in the First Standard. That is why, the date of birth was given at the time of admission as 06.01.1952. Now after enjoying the recorded date of birth in the school records, when the respondent came to employment, to gain two years of service, the respondent came forward with the plea of alteration of his date of birth on the ground that at the time of entering into the School his parents have wrongly given his date of birth as 06.01.1952.
Operative part
It is settled principle of law that a person cannot give one date of birth for admission into school and another date of birth to enter into the service. The respondent cannot change his date of birth to suit his convenience. Therefore, we are unable to appreciate the reasons adopted by the learned single Judge in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allowing the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. The writ appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.sd/-Assistant RegistrarTrue Copy/-Sub Assistant Registrar bs/ To1 The secretary to GovernmentGovernment of Tamil NaduSchool Education DepartmentFort St.George, Chennai – 92 The Director of School EducationCollege Road, Chennai- 63 The Chief Educational OfficerMadurai District, Madurai+1 CC to Government Pleader Sr 28847W.A.No.291 of 2011UG-COKV – 18/05/2012
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ appeal is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.