AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to alter her date of birth in the service records.
The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit, is that the petitioner was born on 10.09.1952 and in the SSLC Book, her date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 10.05.1952 and immediately, on coming to know the same, she gave a representation on 16.10.1986 to the Secretary, St. John''s College,Tirunelveli-2, where she joined the service, followed by various representations dated 25.08.1990, 18.12.1995, 07.04.2000, 10.09.2005 and 29.09.2008, requesting the fourth respondent to make correction in the Service Register by correcting her date of birth from 10.05.1952 to 10.09.1952 on the basis of Birth Certificate issued by the Competent Authority.
It is her case that on 15.01.2009, she sent a representation to the fourth respondent with a similar request and the fourth respondent also sent a communication dated 10.03.2010 to the third respondent stating that on the basis of the Birth Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and the Baptism Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, the date of birth was altered from 10.05.1952 to 10.09.1952 in her Service Register and requested the third respondent to make necessary entries regarding the service particulars and since no action has been taken by the third respondent, this Writ Petition is filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to approve the proposal dated stated 10.03.2010 submitted by the fourth respondent regarding the alteration of date of birth in her Service Register.
The third respondent filed a counter stating that as per the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the application for alteration of date of birth should have been made within five years from the date of joining and the petitioner joined service in the year 1982 and the five years period came to an end on 14.10.1987 and therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered.
The fourth respondent also filed a counter denying the receipt of various representations starting from 16.10.1986 and submitted that from the verification of office files, no such representations were made and the petitioner having remained silent for more than 16 years, approached the fourth respondent only at the fag end of her career and she was to retire by 31.05.2010 and she wanted to enjoy the extended period of one year by altering the date of birth and that cannot be considered at the fag end of her career and the Honourable Supreme Court and our High Court deprecated such practice. It is further stated that the alleged letter sent by the then Secretary to the fourth respondent on 10.03.2010 to the third respondent was not available in the file, but only an entry was made in the Despatch Register and even assuming that, the letter was sent, no alterations were made on the service records as stated therein and the petitioner is not entitled to alter the date of birth at the fag end of her career.
Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner representing Mr. J. Ashok, submitted that the the third respondent has stated in the counter that the petitioner is not entitled to change the date of birth as per Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and this Court has held in K. Michael Antony v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Department of School Education, Chennai-9 and Ors. reported in (2010) 4 MLJ 1207 that the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules will not be applicable to the teachers who are employed in the Private Schools and Colleges and therefore the period of limitation prescribed in Rule 49 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no period of limitation and in the year 1986 itself, the petitioner had given a representation enclosing the Birth Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and the Baptism Certificate and followed by various representations on various dates and the then Secretary of the fourth respondent has also accepted the request of the petitioner and altered the date of birth in service records and only directed the third respondent to alter in their service records and only for that purpose, this Writ Petition is filed and the fourth respondent has to pass an order either accepting or rejecting the proposal of the fourth respondent dated 10.03.2010. He further submitted that having regard to fact that the fourth respondent altered the date of birth in the Service Records, no option is available to the third respondent and he has to act as per the records mentioned by the fourth respondent.
Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that except the allegations made in the affidavit, no proof has been filed by the petitioner for having sent representations for alteration of date of birth from 16.10.1986. He further submitted that even though it is stated in the alleged representation dated 16.10.1986, that the Birth Certificate and the Baptism Certificates were enclosed, the copies of those certificates were not filed and in the type set the Birth Certificate and Baptism Certificate were dated 04.05.2009 and 01.12.2009 and therefore, the petitioner could not have sent a representation dated 16.10.1986. He further submitted that no acknowledgement or proof was filed by the petitioner to show that those representations were sent periodically for alteration of date of birth. He, therefore, submitted that even assuming that the correct date of birth is 10.09.1952, as per Birth Certificate now produced, having kept quiet for all these years and made representation at the fag end of the career, she is not entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Mr. M. Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate, adopted the arguments of the learned Counsel for the fourth respondents.
I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side.
It is admitted that the petitioner joined service in St. John''s College, Tirunelveli, in the year 1986, and even according to the petitioner, she has given an application on 16.10.1986. The St. John''s College and Sarah Tucker College/fourth respondent College herein are coming under the same Management and it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent that after verifying the records, in September 1986, the petitioner was transferred from St. John''s College to Sarah Tucker College and therefore, the alleged representation dated 16.10.1986 could not have been given as it was addressed to St. John''s College.
Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned Counsel for the petitioner represented that though the petitioner was transferred in September 1986 to Sarah Tucker College, she challenged the transfer by filing the writ petition and the transfer was not given effect to and hence, the representation was given to the St. John''s College where she was working at that time.
Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent also produced a xerox copy of the Service Register of the petitioner to the effect that no alteration of date of birth was made in the Service Register of the petitioner though it was alleged in the letter dated 10.03.2010 that the then Secretary of the fourth respondent sent a communication to the third respondent that alteration of date of birth was effected in the service records.
On perusing the same, it is made clear that there was no alteration of date of birth in the service records.
The petitioner is now working as Vice-Principal and earlier to that, she was holding various posts and a person having such qualifications, could not have kept quiet for all these years if the representations were not considered regarding the alteration of date of birth. Even though, as per the judgment in K. Michael Antony v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Department of School Education, Chennai-9 and Ors. reported in (2010) 4 MLJ 1207, Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules cannot be made applicable to the teachers employed in Private Schools and Colleges and no limitation is prescribed, it is well settled law that in case where no limitation is prescribed for making any representation the same must be made within the reasonable time.
In this case, there is no proof produced by the petitioner for having sent a representation from the year 1986 as alleged by her. Though the then Secretary of the fourth respondent sent a letter dated 10.03.2010, to the third respondent requesting the third respondent to effect change in the records regarding the date of birth of the petitioner and in that letter it is stated that in the service records mentioned by the College, the date of birth was altered in accordance with the Birth Certificate, it is seen from the service records that no such alteration was made. In Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandary, Dairying and Fisheries Department, Chennai and Anr. v.S.K. Subbiah reported in (2009) 1 MLJ 1, a Division Bench of this Court dealt with this alteration of date of birth by referring to the case law as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and held that after the expiry of the period mentioned in the Rule, such request cannot be entertained. In that judgment, the Honourable Division Bench referred to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Assam and Another Vs. Daksha Prasad Deka and Others, and held as follows:
The date of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rules. Rule 56(a) must be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the Government servant claims to be his date of birth unless the service record is first corrected consistently with appropriate procedure. Until the record is so corrected, employee cannot claim that he had been deprived of the guarantee under Article 311(2) by having been compulsorily retired on attaining age of superannuation as determined on basis of entry of his date of birth in the service record.
Therefore, from this, it is made clear that unless the service record is corrected, the petitioner cannot claim any right for alteration of date of birth. As held supra, even though no period has been prescribed for alteration of date of birth in respect of employees of Private Schools and Colleges, it ought to have been made within the reasonable time and in this case, in my opinion, no proof has been adduced for having made such representation on earlier occasions and considering the status of the petitioner, it cannot be believed that the petitioner would have kept quiet for all these years without taking any steps for alteration of date of birth. Further, there is no alteration of the date of birth in the service records by the fourth respondent and without any alterations in the Service Records, the third respondent cannot be directed to consider the alteration of date of birth.
For the above reasons, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed . No costs. Consequently, connected connected Miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.