Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1124
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
Sannasi, S/o. B. Iruvan - Petitioner
Vs.
The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Planning and Development Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (MD) No.17094 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2015
Decided On : 02-06-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.A. Mohanram
For the Respondents: Mr. B. Pugalendhi, Mr. N.S. Karthikeyan
The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court within a reasonable time and justified the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
Headnote:
Date of Birth - Service Records - Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules Rule 49(b) - The court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, as the petitioner failed to explain the inordinate delay of 13 years in preferring the appeal and approaching the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to correct the date of birth in the Service Register, claiming that the date of birth entered in the school records was incorrect. The second respondent declined the request, and the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to explain the 13-year delay in approaching the court, and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's writ petition challenging the rejection of the request to alter the date of birth in the service records should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's inaction for more than 13 years without approaching the court or the respondents within a reasonable time justified the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, and closed the connected motions.
The above Writ Petition has been filed for issuing a Writ of Certoriarified Mandamus to quash the proceeding of the second respondent dated 01.02.2001 and direct the second respondent to correct the date of birth in the Service Register of the petitioner as 30.01.1959.
2. The petitioner was appointed through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Assistant Statical Investigator in the office of the Deputy Director of Statistics, Madurai, from 02.08.1991. At the time of entry into service, the petitioner's date of birth was given as 12.09.1957 based on the date of birth found in school records. However, the petitioner's case is that he was born only on 13.01.1959 and that the date of birth was wrongly entered into the school records though his date of birth as registered in the records maintained in his native place reveal that the petitioner was born on 13.01.1959.
3. The petitioner, contenting that his date of birth was wrongly entered in his SSLC book by his parents inadvertently, filed an application on 19.07.1996, for correction of date of birth to his appointing authority in the prescribed format. The petitioner has also further stated in the affidavit that along with the application, the petitioner has also submitted the birth certificate and other records to prove his real date of birth. The petitioner himself has admitted the fact that he applied for his date of birth extract from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Puthumandapam, Madurai and got it only on 11.06.1996.
4. The second respondent on receipt of the petitioner's application has referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, requesting him to enquire into the matter, by an official communication, dated 05.03.1998. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, after enquiry submitted a report dated 29.11.2000 and 21.12.2000. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, reveals that the petitioner's father was a farmer and that the birth extract of the petitioner's brothers and sisters along with that of the petitioner which were produced by the petitioner were compared with the entries found in the original birth register and found genuine. However, the second respondent did not accept the reports of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madrai and declined the request of the petitioner to alter the date of birth of the petitioner as 13.01.1959. The second respondent passed the order on 01.02.2001. However, the petitioner states that he preferred an appeal to the first respondent through the second respondent immediately after the order was passed by the second respondent and that the appeal was returned by a letter dated 16.03.2001 on the ground that the relative documents from the department were not received. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that once again on 07.04.2014 he submitted an appeal with all relevant documents to the appointing authority, namely, the second respondent who forwarded his appeal with all documents to the first respondent. It was also stated by the petitioner that the first respondent has once again returned the appeal for want of records which prompted the petitioner to submit a representation once again on 07.05.2015, for resubmitting the appeal which was returned by the first respondent for want of original records. Since the representation of the petitioner, submitted to the second respondent was not considered, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition.
5. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contenting that the order passed by the second respondent in the 2001 is in accordance with law and in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules particularly Rule 49(b). It was further contented by the first respondent in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not make any further representation as contented by the petitioner in the affidavit for about 13 years after the order was passed by the second respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner to alter the
