Rajamannar, C.J.-This is an appeal against an order of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. on an application made by the Respondent under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act for the issue of a mandate to the Director of Public Instruction, Madras, to carry out a correction of the entry in the S.S.L.C. book of his date of birth, so as to make it read as 26th October, 1931 instead of 8th March, 1930. The allegations by the respondent in the affidavit filed by him in support of his application were that he passed his S.S.L.C. examination in March, 1948 and subsequently became a graduate of the Madras University, that he recently noticed that his date of birth had been wrongly entered in his S.S.L.C. book as 8th March, 1930, that this was due to a pure slip and mistake, that he was filing a certified copy of his date of birth and that the Tahsildar had made the necessary correction in his records. He stated that in reply to a communication to the Director of Public Instruction to make the correction he received a reply directing him to secure an order to that effect from a competent civil Court. On behalf of the Director of Public. Instruction, the Superintendent in the office filed a counter-affidavit in which the allegation that the correct date of birth of the applicant was 26th October, 1931 wag not admitted and objection was taken to the maintainability of the application. The objection is thus set out:-

“3. The applicant had his eligibility declared in March, 1948 and it was in connection with that and for that purpose only the Director of Public Instruction was concerned with the applicant’s age. After his eligibility was declared the Director of Public Instruction has nothing to do with the applicant’s age. In the circumstances, the respondent has neither the duty nor the right to enquire into or alter the applicant’s date of birth. And so, it is submitted that the respondent cannot be called upon under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, to do an act, which is neither by law incumbent on the Director of Public Instruction nor with which he is in any way concerned with as such officer. The application is misconceived and is not maintainable.”

The learned Judge, Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., overruled the objection, and after taking evidence, held that the correct date of birth of the respondent was 26th October, 1931 and ordered the Director of Public Instruction to alter his date of birth to 26th October, 1931. The Director of Public Instruction is the appellant before us, and on his behalf the learned Advocate-General has pressed before us the objection that the application of the respondent is not maintainable under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act.

Before the applicant is entitled to an order under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, he should establish that all the requirements contained in clauses (a) to (h) of that section are satisfied. One of such requirements is that the doing of the specific act required to be done is “under any law for the time being in force, clearly incumbent on such person .... in his .... public character.” We asked learned counsel for the respondent under what law in force was it clearly incumbent on the Director of Public Instruction to carry out the correction. Learned counsel could only refer to a rule framed by the S.S.L.C. Board, apparently with the approval of the Government. The material parts of Subsidiary Rule 5, which is the only relevant rule, is as follows:-

“When the Secondary School-Leaving Certificate is opened on behalf of the pupil, care should be taken to ascertain the correct date of birth and enter that date in the Secondary School-Leaving Certificate. If the date of birth proposed to be entered in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate does not differ from the date entered already in the admission register of the school, no evidence need be demanded from the parent or guardian of the pupil, but a declaration to the effect that the date of birth entered on the school register i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document