The main legal point established is that the State Service Rules do not apply to employees in private schools, and a decree obtained from a competent court for altering the date of birth in the service register holds significant legal weight.

The Petitioner, K. Michael Antony, was appointed as Post Graduate Assistant (Economics) on 7. 1980 in St.Joseph Higher Secondary School, Thiruthuapuram, Later, he was promote and appointed as Head Master with effect with from 6. 2000 in the fifth respondent school, under the same Management. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 35. 2003.

2. When the petitioner was serving as a Headmaster in the fifth respondent school, he having stumbled on Church records and other connected documents, came to know that his correct date of birth was 29. 1944 and not 20.1.1944. He approached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District for necessary direction to the Registrar of Births and Death and got a birth Certificate under the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 certifying his correct date of birth as 29. 1944.

3. The petitioner applied to the respondents 2 to 5 to carry out the correction of his date of birth in the Service Register as per the Birth Certificate. On the ground that the petitioner approached the fourth respondent after a lapse of five years from the date of joining service, the application for such a request was rejected. The representation made to the respondents 1 and 2 did not evoke any response. Therefore, the petitioner instituted a suit in O.S. No. 6703 of 1999 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai seeking a declaration that his date of birth was 29. 1944 and also for a consequential injunction, directing respondents 1, 2 and 4 herein to effect such correction in the service register. The suit was decreed on 12. 2009 in absentia of the respondents 1, 2 and 4 herein. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents 4 and 5 requesting them to effect the correction in the Service Register in terms of the Decree passed by the Competent Court. The fourth respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner on the ground that there was no provisions under the rule for correcting the date of birth in the service register after a lapse of 5 years from the date of entry into the service.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the fifth respondent school is an aided minority private school governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and therefore, Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will have no application. It is contended that inasmuch to the alteration of date of birth found in the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Act , 1973, the petitioner is entitled to seek for alteration of his date of birth in terms of the decree he has obtained from the competent Court.

5. The fifth respondent school virtually sails with the stand taken by the writ petitioner. Respondents 1 to 4 would contend that as per Rule 49(c) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, they are not bound to entertain any application for alteration of date of birth received after lapse of 5 years from the date of entry into service. Therefore, it is submitted that respondents 1 to 4 have rightly rejected the representation made by the petitioner.

6. It is found that the petitioner was serving as Headmaster in the fifth respondent aided private minority school. Service conditions of the Private Schools is found in the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent, there is no provision under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 regarding alteration of date of birth of an employee who has entered into service of the private school.

7. Ona perusal of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, it is found that Rule 49 deals with the alteration of date of birth of an employee in the services of the Government of Tamil Nadu.

8. The question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions und