University cannot be directed to alter date of birth in view of long delay.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to correct his date of birth in his Service Record as 210. 1942 instead of 27. 1940, as per the extract of Birth Register and in accordance with the procedure stipulated under Chapter IX and Chapter XXIV of the calendar of the respondent University.

2. Thecase of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:

According to him, he was appointed as a Professor of the respondent University on 12. 1986. His date of birth has been entered in the Service Record as 27. 1940, on the basis of S.S.L.C. book. He obtained an extract of Birth Register from the Sub Registrar, Dharapuram on 2. 1977. He found that his correct date of birth was 210. 1942 and his parents had furnished his date of birth as 27. 1940, by mistake. The entry in the Birth Register was that, “male child” born to his parents on 210. 1942. The name of the child was given. Hence, he filed O.S.No.660 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif, Dharapuram praying for a general declaration that he is the only son of his parents and to correct his date of birth as 210. 1942. The learned District Munsif, Dharapuram granted a declaratory decree on 9. 1981. Only when he realised that the date of birth in the Service Record of the University was to be corrected, he approached the University with the copy of the order in O.S.No.660 of 1980, in the year 1993, seeking correction of his date of birth in the Service Record. There was no specific provision in the Service Rules of the University about the procedure to be followed in correcting the date of birth of a teacher till 1995. Since his application for correction of date of birth was pending with University, he sent a letter dated 111. 1995 requesting the University to correct his date of birth in accordance with the Rule adopted by the University on 23. 1995. The respondent by letter dated 29. 1996 directed him to approach the Director of School Education to correct his S.S.L.C. book. Inasmuch as the procedure for correction of date of birth is now provided for under the Statutes and Ordinances issued by the University, the University is now bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the Statutes and Ordinances and cannot request him to get the S.S.L.C. book corrected as demanded by it. In such circumstances, having no other remedy has filed the above writ petition.

3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner who entered service in the year 1974 filed an application in the year 1993, requesting the University to change his date of birth from 27. 1940 to 210. 1942. He made this claim on the basis of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.660 of 1980. The said suit was filed for declaration of the date of birth of the petitioner against his mother. Even though the judgment was delivered as early as in the year 1981 and certified copy was also obtained in 1981, the said judgment was brought to the notice of the University only in 1993. Even though the University adopted Rules 49 and 49-A of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) only in the year 1995, since he had entered the service of the University even in the year 1974 and even after obtaining decree in the year 1981, he did not care to effect correction in the Service Book. The courts have taken a view that the application is to be made within five years of entering into service. With these averments they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. In the additional counter affidavit it is once again reiterated that the petitioners request for correction of his date of birth is considered only if he correct the entry in S.S.L.C. book, which is the basis for entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Record. In the present case, the petitioner himself has admitted that the Director of School Education has rejected the c