Madrasreserved High Court · 2025

W.A.No.2969 of 2024Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, pleased to set aside the Orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.13603 of 2024 dated 06.09.2024. For Appellants : Mr.G.Sankaran Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.M.Alagu Goutham Government Advocate for R3 JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.SARAVANAN, J.)This intra Court appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 made in W.P.No.13603 of 2024. By the impugned order, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Writ Court with the following observations:- “11. When the petitioner submitted his application on 29.9.2016, it was done purely placing reliance upon the relevant Rule. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the application submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the Principal Secretary/Commissioner, Revenue and Disaster Management Department to conduct an inquiry and to send a report to the Government.12. By the time the inquiry was taken up, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order on 11.7.2017 in 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024W.P.No.17792 of 2004. The relevant portions in the order dated 11.7.2017 are extracted as hereunder:"9. Under the guise of Service Rules, alteration of date of birth is sought for. The yardstick applied in the case on hand may not be applicable in all cases. It is made clear that a person, who seeks alteration of his date of birth, should have completed 15 years of age while appearing for 10th Standard Examination and if it is found that the person concerned has not satisfied the said age criteria, the employer of the person concerned can very well cancel the appointment order issued to such person and discharge him/her from service without any monetary benefits due to him/her.10. If stringent action is taken to cancel the appointment of employees seeking alteration of date of birth, in case, the employee has not attained the minimum age to take up the qualifying examination from the School, there is a possibility of reduction of cases seeking alteration of Date of Birth.11. The Chief Secretary to Government is directed to issue a Circular to all the Government Departments by enclosing a copy of this judgment and ensure that an employee seeking alteration of date of birth is eligible to take up SS.L.C examination based on his/her correct date of birth."13. In view of the above directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the Government had issued the guidelines dated 18.7.2018, the relevant portions of which read as follows:"4. In compliance with the aforesaid directions of the High Court of Madras, the appointing authorities while considering the application for alteration of date of birth as per the procedures contained in Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 2016) 3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024and letter dated 23.6.2004 referred to in para 1 above, shall verify as to whether the government employee seeking alteration of date of birth has completed 15 years of age in case of S.S.L.C. examination held upto 1977 and 14 years in case of S.S.L.C. examination held from 1978, at the time of appearing for the said examination.5. A copy of the judgment is also enclosed.6. I am directed to request that the above guidelines shall be followed scrupulously."14. In view of the above, the limited scope of inquiry is to ascert the age of the petitioner on the date of passing of his SSLC examina based on the date of birth that is relied upon by the petitioner.15. The petitioner wanted his date of birth to be altered as 12.12.1966. The petitioner passed the SSLC examination on 10.6.1979. If the date birth is taken as 12.12.1966, at that point of time, the petitioner would have completed only 12 years and six months whereas the petitioner ought have completed 14 years in the case of SSLC examination held from the year 1978 onwards.16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the inquiry ought to have been conducted in line with Section 59 of the Act whereas it was stopped midway.17. This Court is not able to agree with the said submission since the scope of inquiry has now been restricted by virtue of the order dated 11.7.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.17792 of 2004, which has translated itself into a guideline issued by the Government dated 18.7.2018. Till the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.7.2017 and the consequential guidelines issued by the Government are intact, the Authorities cannot disregard the same nor conduct an inquiry independently to determine the date of birth of the petitioner.18. The next issue is as to whether the decree obtained by the petitioner in the civil court will bind the respondents and 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024accordingly, they have to act upon the same and alter the date of birth of the petitioner in the service records.19. The order dated 30.9.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16062 of 2010 gives some indication with respect to the manner, in which, this issue has to be dealt with. The relevant portions in the order dated 30.9.2013 are extracted as hereunder:"13. The correction of date of birth in the Service Register is also a service related issue, as Rule 49 contemplates correction of date of birth of a Government Servant. Relevant portion of Rule 49 (a) and (b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules reads as follows,:'49. Alteration of date of birth.-(a) If at the time of appointment, candidate claims that his date of birth is different from that entered to his S.S.L.C. or Matriculation Register or school records, he shall make an application to the Tamil Nadu Public Service 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 Board of Revenue for report after investigation by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector and, on receipt of the report, the Tamil Nadu Public Service 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 rejected:Provided that in case of candidate who was born outside the State of Tamil Nadu the investigation through the Board of Revenue shall be dispensed with and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or the appointing authority, as the case may be, shall examine and scrutinise the records that may be produced by the candidate and shall decide whether 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application may be rejected.(b) 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 mark 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- rule (a).'Admittedly, petitioner applied for correction of date of birth in his service register under that provision on 21.5.1990 while in Government service, which was rejected on 5.10.1991. Ignoring the said statutory bar to go before any other forum regarding service disputes, the petitioner has chosen to approach the Civil Court by filing O.S.No.362 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar, and prayed for declaration to declare his date of birth as 3.7.1958 instead of 14.5.1957, which has been entered into in the SSLC certificate, and also for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with his Government service. In the said suit the State Government, the Director General of Police; TNPSC; the Director of School Education; and Sub-Registrar, Vathalakundu, Madurai, were shown as defendants. The respondents herein contested the suit stating that the date of birth alteration sought for in the Service Register was rejected in the year 1991 itself. Petitioner also stated in the plaint that he was in the service of the Tamil Nadu State Government.14. The Civil Court, which was not vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the said suit on and from 12.12.1988, granted a decree on 17.9.1995 in the suit filed in the year 1994. Based on the Civil Court decree, the petitioner again submitted representation to alter the date of birth before the respondents, which was 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024rejected by the State Government in its order dated 11.4.2002, clearly stating that Civil Court order does not bind the Government and therefore the Government are not obliged to alter the Service Register on the basis of Civil Court's decree. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner.15. In G.O.Ms.No.758 Education, Science and Technology (E1) Department, dated 25.10.1996, the Government clearly stated that correction to be made in the SSLC Book and the correction to be made in the service register of a Government Servant are different issues and correction of date of birth in the service register has to be examined under Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is competent to entertain any request from the Government Servant. In spite of the said Government Order, the petitioner chose to approach the Civil Court and obtained a decree.”20. The Division Bench of this Court held that the alteration of date of birth is governed by the Service Rules and there was a forum at that point of time called Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal where it had be agitated if the Government servants did not get the relief. The Tribunal came to effect from 12.12.1988. In view of the same, it was further held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted, that any decree passed by civil court will be considered to be null and void and that such decree cannot be relied upon for the purpose of altering the service register.21. The jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain a suit is governed by Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. It provides that courts must try all civil suits unless barred. It is now too well settled that the civil court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.22. In the instant case, there is no express bar to lay a suit before the civil court seeking for correction in the date of birth. However, when a person enters Government service, the relevant enactment (Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024Service Rules, which is presently Section 59 of the Act) specifically provides for alteration of the date of birth. The Government employee has to necessarily follow the procedure given under this enactment in order to alter the date of birth and to incorporate the same in the service records.23. In such a scenario, it has to be construed that a suit filed seeking for such a relief, which directly touches upon the service records of the petitioner, is impliedly barred. The petitioner is asking for alteration of the date of birth only to incorporate the same in the service records. Therefore, the decree obtained by the petitioner has a direct bearing on the service record of the petitioner, which is specifically covered under the relevant enactment. Hence, such suits seeking for alteration of the date of birth or the decree, which is sought to be used for altering the service records, mus be held to be impliedly barred.24. By taking cue from the order dated 30.9.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and in the light of the above reasonings, this Court holds that the decree dated 26.3.2024 obtained by the petitioner in O.S.No.54 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru null and void and not binding on the respondents. Consequently, the respondents need not rely upon the said decree of the civil court and alter the date of birth in the service records of the petitioner. The upshot of the above discussions is that the impugned proceedings of both the first respondent dated 29.4.2024 as well as the second respondent dated 06.3.2023 do not suffer from any illegality warranting the interference of this Court. Hence, this Court cannot grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner.25. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs Consequently, the connected WMPs are also dismissed.2. Aggrieved by the above order, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. It is submitted that the application for correction of the Date of Birth in the service register was made in time i.e., immediately after appointment of the 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024petitioner and therefore the decision of the Writ Court rejecting the writ petition and thereby upholding the order dated 29.04.2024 bearing Reference No.10158/Sa.Ka/2022-1 dated 29.04.2024 of the first respondent as well as the order of the second respondent dated 06.03.2023 bearing Reference Na.Ka.No.2384/A4/2016 are liable to be interfered with. Consequently, it is the prayer of the appellant that respondent Nos.1 to 3 be directed to make suitable alterations in the Date of Birth of the petitioner in the service register as 12.12.1966 instead of 06.04.1964. 3. The appellant who was the Writ Petitioner was selected and appointed as a Lecturer in Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai. Later he was re-designated as an Assistant Professor after his probation was declared. It is at that stage, the appellant realized that his Date of Birth was wrongly noted in the service register since the Date of Birth has been wrongly recorded in the service register as 06.04.1964, even though, according to the appellant he was born only on 12.12.1966. It is in this background, the appellant submitted an application dated 29.06.2016/correction of the Date of Birth as 12.12.1966 instead of 12.12.1964 under Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 20244. The appellant had earlier filed O.S.No.54 of 2017 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru for a declaration that the appellant was born on 12.12.1966 and for a consequential correction in the service register. The suit was contested by the respondent and was decreed on 26.03.2024.5. However, the second respondent vide letter dated 06.03.2023 bearing Reference Na.Ka.No.2384/A4/2016 informing the petitioner that there was no scope for altering the Date of Birth of the petitioner in view of the decision of this Court in R.Santhoshkumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others in W.P.No.17792 of 2004 dated 11.07.2017 and the consequential guidelines issued by the Government vide its order dated 18.07.2018.6. The specific case of the appellant is that the impugned order declining to interfered with the order of the first and second respondents fails to note that application was made strictly in accordance with Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, which is presently Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.7. It is the further case of the appellant that the Writ Court has failed to taken note of the judgment secured by the appellant in O.S.No.54 of 2017 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru vide judgment and decree dated 26.03.2024. 8. It is therefore submitted that no appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree and therefore there is no scope for taking a contra decision. 9. It is further submitted that reliance has been placed in the decision of the Writ Court in W.P.No.16062 of 2010 dated 30.09.2013 was wholly mis-placed as the said judgment was rendered in its case where a Civil Suit was filed challenging the order of the Department before Civil Court and for a declaration of Date of Birth after the formation of “Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal” with effect from 12.12.1988 and hence, the said decision was that no application to the facts of the case. It is further submitted that any reference to the circular issued by the Department dated 18.07.2018 following the order dated 11.07.2017 in W.P.No.17792 of 2004 is also mis-placed since the same has not been implemented in accordance with Section 59 of the aforesaid Act.10. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024Counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader for the first and second respondents and Government Advocate for the third respondent.11. The appellant was appointed as a Lecturer (Senior Scale)/Asst Professor on 05.05.2015 vide G.O.(Ms).No.161, Law Department, dated 05.05.2015. In the certificates that would have been filed before the respondents, the date of birth of the appellant would have been 12.12.1964 and not 12.12.1966.12. What would have been relevant is the date of birth given by the appellant in the application filed in response to the notification issued for appointing the appellant to the aforesaid post. Otherwise, the appellant would not have been appointed.13. If there was a doubt regarding the qualification obtained by the appellant within the milestones prescribed for obtaining further qualification after obtaining Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC), it should have been sorted out long by the appellant before applying for the post in response to the application called by the respondents to the post of Lecturer (Senior 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024Scale)/Asst Professor. 14. In fact, the appellant would have relied on the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) at every stage of his life for pursuing his Under Graduation (UG) and Post Graduation (PG) qualifications. The appellant would have also been appointed based on the testimonials and certificates produced by the appellant during certificate verification.15. After joining service, the appellant filed an application under Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules on 29.09.2016 which allows a Governments Servant to apply for correction of the date of birth after entering into service. As per Rule 49(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 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 Tamil Nadu Public Service 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 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024the rank of a Deputy Collector and, on receipt of the report, the Tamil Nadu Public Service 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 rejected. Rule 49(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules reads as under:-“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 66 Matriculation Register or School records, he shall make an application to the Tamil Nadu Public Service 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 Tamil Nadu Public Service 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 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 Tamil Nadu Public Service 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.”16. A correction in the service register can also be allowed if it is found that the date of birth entered in the Service Register was in variance with the details entered in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) Book or in 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024the Matriculation Register or in the School records under Rule 49A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. 17. The Rule 49A mandates, such an application has to be made with the appointing authority within five years of entering into service. 18. Alteration of the service records under 49A is permissible only if there was a wrong entry made due to bonafide mistake on the part of the official respondents. This is not a case here.19. However, as per Rule 49(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, while considering, such an application for alteration of the date of birth entered in the Official records, even if such a wrong entry is proved to have been made due to a bonafide mistake, the Government or the appointing authority as the case may be has to take into consideration as to whether such an applicant would have been normally eligible for appointment to the post at the time of entry into service had his age been correctly stated and what would have been its effect on his service and the service conditions of other officers in the service and may permit the alteration subject to such condition as they or it may deem fit to impose.15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 202420. For the sake of the clarity, Rule 49(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules is reproduced below: -“Rule 49(d). In considering the question of permitting an alteration on the date of birth as entered in the official records even when such entry is proved to have been due to a bonafide mistake, the Government or the appointing authority shall take into consideration the circumstance whether the applicant would normally be eligible for appointment to the post at the time of entry into service had his age been correctly stated and what would have been its effect on his service and the service conditions of other officers in the service and may permit the alteration subject to such condition as they or it may deem fit to impose: Provided that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission shall be consulted in the case of an applicant who has been initially recruited through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, if it is proposed to accept his request for alteration of date of birth.” 21. If the appellant was born on 12.12.1966, on 10.06.1979, on the date on which the appellant claims to have passed from 10th standard and obtained his Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) from the school, the appellant would have been 12 years and 7 months,22. It is highly improbable that the school would have allowed the appellant to appear for the 10th standard Board Exams, if the age of the Appellant was only 12 years and 7 months on 10.06.1979 i.e., date of Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC). 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 202423. The appellant has also not produced any documents to substantiate that he was given a double or multiple promotions in the school due to an extraordinary calibre he may have assessed to write and to appear for the 10th standard exam in the year 1979. The Court is also aware of the past practice in rural Tamil Nadu where parents of young wards advance the age of their children to gets admitted early in the School. This was inpractice during the era when the registration of date of birth records maintained in the hospitals was not mandatory. 24. However, there are neither records nor any tangible evidence either before this Court or before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru where the appellant filed O.S.No.54 of 2017 for a declaration that the appellant was born on 12.12.1964.25. The decree obtained by the appellant in O.S.No.54 of 2017 on 26.03.2024 from the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru, however, holds that the appellant was born on 12.12.1964 as it was practically an uncontested suit. 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 202426. None of the official respondents herein who were arrayed as defendants in the above suit had filed the written statements. Only the 9th defendant i.e., St.Gabriel Hospital, Thanjavur District contested the suit by filing a written statement. This perhaps explains why the O.S.No.54 of 2017 filed by the appellant before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru was decreed as prayed for by the appellant on 26.03.2024 .27. The said decree of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru obtained by the appellant on 26.03.2024 in O.S.No.54 of 2017 has not been however disturbed till date. The aforesaid decree is binding on the official respondents as it stares at them. Neither this Court nor the Writ Court can ignore it. It would merit consideration.28. The said decree obtained by the appellant on 26.03.2024 in O.S.No.54 of 2017 from the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru, has also not been appealed before the Sub Court by the respondents. 29. On the other hand, the respondents have rejected the application filed on 29.09.2016 for altering the date of birth of the appellant in the Service 18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024Register based on the decision of this Court on 11.07.2017 made in W.P.No.17792 of 2004.30. The Court in W.P.No.17792 of 2004 ruled that a person, who seeks alteration of date of birth, should have completed 15 years of age before appearing for the 10th standard Board Examination and if it is found that the person concerned did not satisfy the said age criteria, the employer of the person can very well cancel the appointment order issued to such person and discharge him/her from service without any monetary benefits due to him/her. 31. We can hardly find any reasons to take a contra view or to disagree with the view expressed by the Writ Court in the above Writ Petition as it is in line with the requirement of Rule 49(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.32. The consequences flowing from these two decisions i.e., the decree of the Civil Court declaring date of birth of the appellant as 12.12.1966 and a decision of this Court dated 11.07.2017 in W.P.No.17792 of 2004 are in conflict with each other. 19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 202433. The observation of the Writ Court in the impugned order that O.S.No.54 of 2017 filed by the appellant before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru was barred by law under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, in our view, is correct, as the appellant has wrongly worked of the remedy contrary to law i.e., Rule 49(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.34. However, if O.S.No.54 of 2017 was barred by law, suitable application to reject the plaint ought to have been filed by the official respondents before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru in O.S.No.54 of 2017.35. The official respondents who were party to the proceedings, ought to have been vigilant and properly defended themselves before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru in O.S.No.54 of 2017. 36. Several avenues were available to bring closure to the proceedings under Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, it cannot be said that O.S.No.54 of 2017 filed by the appellant before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru was barred by law.20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 202437. Since an erroneous decree was passed by the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru in O.S.No.54 of 2017 on 26.03.2024, it is incumbent on the part of the official respondents to take steps to set aside the aforesaid decree in the manner known to law. 38. While, a decree passed by a Civil Court which confers a right in personam to the person cannot be ignored. However, in the present case in terms of Rule 49(d), the Government or the appointing Authority can take an independent view.39. The general direction issued by the Writ Court in W.P.No.17792 of 2004 on 11.07.2017 is binding both on the appellants and the official respondents herein.40. In our view, no mistake, much less bonafide mistake was committed by the respondents in the Service Register of the Appellant at the time of the appointment of the appellant in the year 2015 vide G.O.(Ms).No.161, Law Department, dated 05.05.2015.21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 202441. The decree that was obtained by the appellant was an afterthought and contrary to procedure prescribed under Rule 49(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Therefore, Court also cannot turn nelson eyes to the reality that the appellant was neither qualified to write his 10th standard Board 1979 nor to the fact that the decree that was obtained on 26.03.2024 from the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru was practically an exparte decree without any evidence. The appellant cannot be therefore conferred with any special advantage based on the aforesaid decree.42. Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere with the impugned decision of the Writ Court. Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the present Writ Appeal filed by the appellant.43. This Writ Appeal therefore stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs. [R.S.K., J.] [C.S.N., J.] 29.04.2025Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderNeutral Citation : Yes/Nojas22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024To1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to the Government, Law Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Director of Legal Studies, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.3.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.4.The Principal Accountant General (A&E) Tamil Nadu, No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.2969 of 2024R.SURESH KUMAR, J.andC.SARAVANAN, J.jasW.A.No.2969 of 2024andC.M.P.No.22279 of 2024 29.04.202524/24