Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K. SASIDHARAN, P.T. ASHA, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Joint Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Another - Appellant
Versus
Dr. As.S. Radhakrishnan - Respondents
W.A. No. 2261 of 2019
Decided On : 31-07-2019
For the Appellant :P.H. Aravind Pandian, Additional Advocate General assisted by C. Munusamy, Spl.G.P.
For the Respondents:Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel for M/s. Isaac Chambers, Advocates
The main legal point established is that a civil court decree alone is not sufficient to change the date of birth in government service records, and that the statutory procedure under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 must be followed.
Headnote:
Government Servant - Change of Date of Birth - Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 - Section 59(1)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a civil suit to change his date of birth in the school records, which was decreed. He later joined government service and sought to change his date of birth in the service records. The authorities asked for documents as per the Act, but the appellant relied solely on the civil court decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the civil court decree did not bind the competent authority under the Act, and the appellant was required to comply with the statutory procedure for changing his date of birth in the service records.
Issues: The core issue was whether the civil court decree alone was sufficient to change the date of birth in the government service records, without complying with the procedure under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the civil court decree did not give the appellant a special right for correction of his date of birth in the service records, and that the statutory procedure under the Act must be followed.
Final Decision: The order directing the appellant to produce documents and comply with the statutory procedure was upheld, and the appellant was permitted to submit the required documents for consideration by the Competent Authority.
JUDGMENT :
K.K. Sasidharan, J.
Introductory:-
Whether a Government servant is entitled to change his date of birth in the service records on the strength of a civil court decree, which is in the nature of a direction to the Education Department to correct the date of birth in the SSLC Book, without complying with the mandatory procedure indicated in Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules and presently Section 59(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 is the core question that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal filed by the State.
Brief facts:-
2. The date of birth of the appellant was registered in the school records as 31 July 1961. The appellant filed a civil suit in O.S.No.363 of 1997 before the Principal District Munsif, Madurai, impleading the Director of School Education, Registrar Madurai Kamaraj University and the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by District Collector, Madurai, and Thiru. A. Sethuraman, who is none other than his father, praying for a decree of declaration and mandatory injunction, directing the Director of School Education to correct his age in the school certificate and for a consequential direction to the Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University to effect necessary changes in the transfer certificate. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 1 August 2000. The entry in the school certificate was corrected as 31 July 1962 pursuant to the Decree passed by the civil court.
3. Even during the currency of the suit, the appellant secured appointment as Executive Officer in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Department. The respondent joined service on 12 May 1999. The date of birth was shown in the application and the attestation form as 31 July 1961. Thereafter, he was appointed directly as District Educational Officer by order dated 13 September 2001.
4. The respondent made an application within five years of his initial entry for alteration of date of birth in accordance with Rule 49(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules. The application was submitted on 31 July 2002. The application was ultimately rejected by the Competent Authority by order dated 7 July 2005. The said order was challenged in W.P.No.34538 of 2005. The High Court after setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition, directed the respondent to make a fresh application enclosing the relevant documents. The appellants herein were directed to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders.
5. The respondent submitted a fresh application on 11 May 2016 for correction of his date of birth in the service records. The second appellant by communication dated 6 June 2016, directed the respondent to produce the original service register and other documents. Those documents were furnished by the respondent. The respondent cited the attention of the authorities that in view of the civil court decree, there was no need for furnishing any other documents.
6. The first appellant by its proceedings dated 20 July 2017, called upon the respondent to furnish further documents in accordance with Section 59(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. The respondent challenged the said proceedings before the writ court in W.P.No.28565 of 2017.
7. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the civil court decree in O.S.No.363 of 1997 is conclusive proof with regard to the actual date of birth and as such, no other documents are necessary. The writ petition was accordingly allowed. The said order is under challenge in this intra court appeal.
Submissions:-
8. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that the civil court decree is not binding on the Competent Authority constituted in exercise of the power conferred under Section 59(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the respondent was asked to produce documents for taking a decision to
