Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN
Dr. M. Arumugam
Versus
The Registrar Tamilnadu Agricultural University Coimbatore
W.P.No.26187 of 2011
Decided On: 14-03-2012
DATE OF BIRTH - GOVERNMENT SERVICE - RULE 49 OF TAMIL NADU STATE SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES - 49(a), 49(b), 49(c) - The court discussed the petitioner's attempt to alter his date of birth after 37 years of his birth, the delay and laches in his application, and the impact of altering the date of birth on service and promotions. The court highlighted the importance of public interest and the potential injustice to juniors and unemployed youth if date of birth alterations were allowed. The court recommended amending Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, incorporating a provision similar to Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act 1963, and making it clear in recruitment notifications that date of birth reflected in academic certificates alone will be considered for entering into service and cannot be altered subsequently till superannuation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to alter his date of birth after 37 years of his birth, which was reflected in his academic records and service register. The court found that the petitioner's delay and laches in pursuing the alteration, and the potential impact on service and promotions, were key factors in the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for alteration of date of birth was not supported by sufficient evidence and was belated, leading to a recommendation for dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the petitioner's attempt to alter his date of birth after a significant delay, the impact of such alteration on service and promotions, and the public interest in preventing potential injustice to juniors and unemployed youth.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of public interest and the potential injustice to juniors and unemployed youth if date of birth alterations were allowed. The court recommended amending Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, incorporating a provision similar to Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act 1963, and making it clear in recruitment notifications that date of birth reflected in academic certificates alone will be considered for entering into service and cannot be altered subsequently till superannuation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and recommended amendments to the relevant service rules to prevent date of birth alterations after entering into service.
1. Not only HOROSCOPE is cast on the basis of date of birth, entry of a person into service and exit from the service is also determined based on that. Therefore, the date of birth is a vital information. Here is a case where, the petitioner declared his date of birth as 13.4.1952 which is also reflected in school records as well as other academic records and joined the service on the basis of those documents and suddenly woke up and tried to correct his date of birth as 12.4.1953. This case is only a tip of iceberg where some of the government servants are trying to stick to their seats by altering the date of birth in one way or other thereby preventing the juniors getting promoted and the new generation getting employment. The administration should not be stagnated with the old employees by altering their date of births.
2. The petitioner is a Postgraduate Degree holder in "Agronomy" from the Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore and doctorate in the same subject. His date of birth, according to SSLC book, is 13.4.1952. He was appointed on 15.10.1984 as Assistant Professor (Agronomy) at Kumaraperumal Farum Science Centre, Tiruchirapalli. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application to the authorities on 29.9.1989 enclosing a copy of the birth certificate issued by the Sub Registrar Office, Kalakad showing that his date of birth as 12.4.1953 so as to alter his date of birth accordingly. The said application was returned for certain clarifications and the same was represented on 20.11.1991. Again it was returned on 20.2.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a remainder with certain documents on 23.8.2006. Further representations were given on 30.12.2009 and on 31.5.2010. The representation dated 31.5.2010 was rejected by the impugned order stating that there is no provision for change of date of birth at the belated stage. The said order is being challenged before this Court.
3. Mr.S.Namasivayam, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend strenuously by giving proper explanation to the queries put by this Court that the petitioner's plea is bonafide and it is supported by appropriate documents to show that the petitioner was actually born on 12.4.1953 and not on 13.4.1952. He further submitted that even if the date of birth is altered, the petitioner is competent to get appointed and would not get change as stated in rule 49 (b) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. He would contend that Rule 49(c) only speaks about the application to be filed within 5 years from the date of appointment. As the petitioner proved his date of birth as 12.4.1953, his request has to be considered. He relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Cidco vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevelkar and reported in (2009) 7 SCC 283, wherein it has been held that the deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness. An un-reported judgment in W.P.No.6884 of 1997 dated 10.3.2003, in the matter of Vijay Amalraj vs. The Chairman, Madras Port Trust and two others and the judgment in W.P.No.268 of 2008 dated 11.12.2009 in S.Visalakshi vs. The Commissioner of Chennai Corporation and two others also laid down the above ratio. The other judgment relied upon is K.C.Kalaikovan vs. Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Chennai-5 and others reported in (2011) 4 MLJ 815, wherein it has been held that the authorities cannot disown the birth certificate issued by the competent authority unless it is held to be false. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for allowing the writ petition.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner for alteration of date of birth is belated. Even if the application is stated to be filed in the year 1989, there was no follow up action taken by the petitioner and 14 years got lapsed. Therefore, the petitioner is guilty of lat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
