S. Sureka v. The Secretary State Board of School Examinations

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.9.2009CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.5016 of 2009S.Sureka..PetitionerVs.1. The Secretary State Board of School Examinations College Road, Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 006.2. The Headmaster Government Higher Secondary School Kizh-Kottagiri The Nilgiris District-643 2713. The Regional Passport Officer Sastri Bhavan Chennai – 600 006... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India forissue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to correct thedate of birth of the petitioner in the educational certificates andpassport based on the birth certificate issued by the MunicipalAuthority, Tirunelveli within the stipulated time.For Petitioner:Mr.M.PariFor Respondents:Mrs.Dakshayani ReddyGovernment Advocatefor respondents 1 and 2Mr.C.S.Sundararaj, SCGSCfor 3rd respondentORDERHeard Mr.M.Pari, learned counsel for the petitioner,Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, learned Government Advocate taking notice forrespondents 1 and 2 making submissions on instructions andMr.C.S.Sundararaj, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counselfor the third respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The writ petition is for a direction against the respondentsto correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the educationalcertificates and passport based on the birth certificate issued bythe Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation. As per the birth certificateissued by the Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, the date of birth ofthe petitioner is stated as 1.12.1983. However, when the petitionerwas admitted in the school, the date of birth has been given as1.12.1984 and that date has continued in the S.S.L.C. as well asH.S.C. transfer certificates and mark sheets. 3. Based on the educational certificates, it appears that thepetitioner has applied for passport to the third respondent. In theapplication, the petitioner has stated her date of birth as1.12.1984. Finding the discrepancy, the third respondent has returnedthe application stating that as per the municipal records the date ofbirth is 1.12.1983, while in the school records it is stated as1.12.1984, as it has been indicated in the passport application also.4. It is the case of the petitioner that only after that thepetitioner came to know about the discrepancy and immediatelythereafter she has made representation to all the respondents on5.1.2009 requesting them to effect change of her date of birth as1.12.1983 instead of 1.12.1984 in the school records.5. Mrs.Dakshayini Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearingfor respondents 1 and 2 would submit that, as per the relevantguidelines issued in this regard, any student who passes out the Plus2 examination will be entitled to make an application for correctingthe date of birth in the certificate within five years. According toher, in the present case, the petitioner has passed the Plus 2examination conducted in March, 2003 and she should have filed theapplication on or before the year 2008, however, the application cameto be filed only on 5.1.2009. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is seenthat the petitioner claims to have the date of birth altered based onthe municipal records, wherein the date of birth has been stated as1.12.1983, only for the purpose of passport and visa to be obtainedto leave for Australia. In such circumstances, the normal orderwhich will be passed by this Court that the party should go to theCivil Court for the purpose of rectification of the records is notgoing to serve any purpose. It is a rarest circumstance in whichthis Court should exercise the jurisdiction. That was also the viewtaken by the Supreme Court in R.K.Jangra v. State of Punjab, [2009] 5SCC 703. In that case, the petitioner therein has joined service asearly as in 1980 and after putting up service of 14/15 years, he madean application to the Registrar of the Punjab University for thepurpose of altering the date of birth by which he will be getting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ benefit of one more year of service. As per the Service Regulationsof the Government of Punjab which was amended by the Punjab CivilService Rules, any person who desires to have the alteration of dateof birth in the service registers should file application within twoyears from the date of coming into force of the said Rule which cameinto force from 21.6.1994 and the application filed by the petitionertherein was rejected by the Punjab University on the basis that thesame was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by theregulations. When that was challenged before the High Court, theHigh Court passed usual order relegating the party to avail theordinary remedy before a Civil Court, since it required appreciationof evidence and so on and it was in those circumstances, when thematter was taken up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court takingnote of the peculiar facts and circumstances held that in suchcircumstances it is not proper for the Court to relegate the party tothe Civil Court in which event the very purpose of coming to theCourt will be lost. The Supreme Court has held as follows:"12. In view of the above discussion, in the peculiarfacts and circumstances, we direct the competentauthority/Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation,Punjab, Chandigarh to consider the representation filedby the appellant on 8.5.1987, in the light of documentsand materials produced by him, within a month from thedate of this order, if the representation made by theappellant is available with the respondent untrammelledby any of the observations made in the earlier orders."7. It is true that the judgment of the Apex Court in that casewas on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. But,applying the yardstick laid down by the Supreme Court in that case tothe facts of the present case, I am of the view that equally this isa case where no useful purpose will be served in relegating thepetitioner to the civil court for the purpose of leaving the countryto settle in a foreign country. Further, it is made clear that thepresent writ petition is only for the purpose of getting visa and notfor any other purpose. 8. Even by taking the stand of respondents 1 and 2 that withinfive years such application should be filed, it is seen that thepetitioner has appeared in Plus 2 examination conducted in March,2003 and the examination results would have been published in May,2003 and the petitioner has made application on 5.1.2009 and there isonly few months delay in respect of the period of limitation grantedunder the guidelines which are governing respondents 1 and 2regarding alteration of date of birth.9. Under the peculiar circumstances involved in this case, I amof the considered view that the first respondent and the Director of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Examination, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006should be directed to consider the representation of the petitionerdated 5.1.2009 in its proper perspective and pass appropriate ordersregarding alteration of date of birth taking it as a special case andconsequently, the third respondent should be directed to act as perthe said order passed by the first respondent and the Director ofGovernment Examination, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006 asstated above and correct the date of birth of the petitioner in thepassport, if there are no other legal impediments.In the result, this writ petition stands ordered with a directionto the first respondent and the Director of Government Examination,College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006 to consider therepresentation of the petitioner dated 5.1.2009 for alteration ofdate of birth from 1.12.1984 to 1.12.1983 in its proper perspectiveand pass orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receiptof a copy of this order. Thereafter, the third respondent shall,taking into consideration the representation of the petitioner dated5.1.2009 and the order passed by the first respondent and theDirector of Government Examination, College Road, Nungambakkam,Chennai-600006 as stated above, pass appropriate orders in respect ofalteration of date of birth in the passport, if there are no otherlegal impediments and such orders shall be passed within two weeks.It is made clear that this order is passed only in the peculiar factsand circumstances of the case and shall not be cited as a precedentin other cases. No costs.Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarsasiTo:1. The Secretary State Board of School Examinations College Road, Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 006.2. The Headmaster Government Higher Secondary School Kizh-Kottagiri The Nilgiris District-643 271 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Regional Passport Officer Sastri Bhavan Chennai – 600 006.4. The Director of Government Examination College Road, Nungambakkam Chennai – 600 006.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.46030+1 cc to Mr. Prof.C.S.Sundararaj, Advocate, SR.No.46022+1 cc to Mr.M.Pari, Advocate, SR.No.45776W.P.No.5016 of 2009KM {CO}TP/22.9.2009.