The Civil Court decree is not binding on the government in matters of alteration of date of birth in service records, and the alteration based on the Civil Court decree can be ignored.

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

1. This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.75 of 2008 dated 10.7.2009, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order of the Government dated 2.3.2007, rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking alteration of his date of birth from 14.5.1957 to 3.7.1958, in service records.

2. The case of the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, was as follows :

(a) Petitioner was directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I), selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission vide G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 5.3.1987. He joined duty on 16.3.1987 and he was conferred IPS on promotion quota on 14.12.1999. His date of birth was entered as 14.5.1957 in the SSLC Certificate and in the School records, while admitting the petitioner by his parents in the school.

(b) According to the petitioner, the petitioner's parents are illiterate, who gave the wrong date of birth while admitting him in school, which was recorded in the SSLC certificate as well as in the service register. The claim of the petitioner is that his actual date of birth is 3.7.1958 and not on 14.5.1957.

(c) Petitioner after joining in the Tamil Nadu Police Department on 16.3.1987, submitted a representation on 21.5.1990 to alter his date of birth in the service register and connected records. According to the petitioner, the said application was rejected on 5.10.1991 without following Rule 49(b) in Part-II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.

(d) Petitioner filed Civil Suit in O.S.No.362 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar, for declaring his correct date of birth as 3.7.1958 instead of 14.5.1957. The said suit was decreed in his favour on 17.10.1995 with a direction to the defendants therein to alter the date of birth on or before 17.12.1995. Appeal filed by the defendants therein/respondents herein was dismissed by confirming the decree passed, declaring his date of birth as 3.7.1958.

(e) After the Civil Court decree became final, petitioner submitted representation on 1.2.2000 for alteration of his date of birth, which was rejected by the third respondent herein on 11.4.2001 stating that the Civil Court order do not bind the Government for altering the date of birth of the Government servant, and the Government is not obliged to correct the service records on the basis of Civil Court decree.

(f) The Director of School Education, changed the date of birth in the school records as per the Civil Court decree. The petitioner was conferred IPS on 14.12.1999 on promotion quota, he again submitted a representation to the respondents on 17.2.2003, which was replied by the third respondent on 14.11.2003 stating that his request was rejected by the Government.

(g) Aggrieved over the said order dated 14.11.2003 passed by the third respondent, petitioner has filed O.A.No.725 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the order dated 14.11.2003 by order dated 17.11.2006 and directed to reconsider the request and pass appropriate speaking order in accordance with law.

(h) Pursuant to the said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.11.2006, a further representation was submitted by the petitioner on 12.2.2007, which was rejected by G.O.Ms.No.131, Home (Pol.I.A.) Department, dated 2.3.2007, against which O.A.No.75 of 2008 was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that no personal hearing was given before rejecting the request to alter the date of birth; that the original date of birth being made based on the information of his illiterate parents, the same may not be conclusive proof when credible evidence are made out for correction of date of birth; and that the Government ought to have corrected the date of birth entry in the service register, particularly when the Civil Court has declared his corr