The exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the importance of complying with the limitation period for correction of date of birth under Rule 49 were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

P.K. Misra, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The primary issue relates to the question of alteration of date of birth of a person in Government employment. The petitioner entered into the Government service on 16. 1963. At that time, his date of birth was shown as 19. 1939 in the service records. Subsequently, the petitioner filed O.S.No.313 of 1992 before the learned District Munsif, Kulithalai, for declaration that his correct date of birth is 27. 1941 and consequently, for alteration in the service register indicating such correct date of birth. In the said suit, the State Government as well as the Deputy District Educational Officer, Karur, were impleaded as defendants. The civil Court accepted the contention of the petitioner and decreed the suit on 211. 1993. As is the wont in many such matters, the proposal for filing appeal was initiated much after the disposal of the suit and ultimately, the appeal was filed with delay of 605 days. The I Appellate Court, Kulithalai, predictably did not condone the delay and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed on 13. 1996 on the ground of limitation. At that stage, the then Special Government Pleader opined that no further appeal need be filed. Armed with the decree of the civil Court, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7500 of 1997 with a prayer for continuance in service by treating the date of birth as 27. 1941 as per the decree of the civil Court. The Tribunal, by reasoned order dated 30.9.1997, which was also the normal date of superannuation as per the original entry in the service register, observed that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with such matters and therefore, the decree of the civil Court was a nullity and not binding and accordingly, the Original Application was dismissed.

3. It appears that the petitioner had also simultaneously moved the Government for continuance in service beyond the date of superannuation on the basis of the decree of the civil Court and the Government had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.418, Education Department, dated 30.9.97 for continuance in service on the very same day when O.A.No.7500 of 1997 was dismissed by the Tribunal, obviously, presumably unaware of the order passed in the said Original Application. Subsequently, however, when the decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.7500 of 1997 was brought to the notice of the Government, G.O.Ms. No.487 was passed on 211. 1997 recalling the earlier order relating to continuance in service. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A.No.10001 of 1997 for quashing such later order of the Government and for a direction to the Government to allow him to continue in service as per the date of birth declared by the civil Court. The said Original Application having been dismissed under the impugned judgment, the present writ petition is before this Court.

4. It is necessary to note that the first order of the Tribunal dated 30.9.1997 in O.A.No.7500 of 1997 was not challenged in the High Court. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner states that a review application was filed against such order, he is unable to state as to what happened to such review application nor able to furnish the particulars.

5. In the above background of material facts, the contentions raised by the petitioner are to the following effect:-

1) In view of the decree of the civil Court, which became final having not been challenged, the principle of res judi cata is applicable and the Government is bound to act upon such decree of the civil Court, as the Government was a party to such proceeding;

2) Having extended the services of the petitioner, the Government had no jurisdiction to recall such order and that too, without giving an opportunity of hearing; and

3) Since the petitioner had entered into service before the introduction of Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Service Rules, the period of limitation of five years, as contemplated under Rule 49 is not applicable.

6. The first quest