M. Jesu Thiagaraj vs State of Tamil Nadu Presented by Secretary to Government, Education Department, Madras and Others

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to correct the

petitioner''s date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (hereinafter referred to as SSLC) as 21.10.1114 Malayalam Era

corresponding to 4.6.1939 instead of 7.5.1939.

The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder :

According to him, the petitioner is holder of M.A., M.Ed., and he was appointed as B.T. Assistant in the St. Lawrence Higher Secondary School,

Madathattuvilai, Kanyakumari District in the year 1973. Since 1981 he was employed as post graduate teacher in the same Higher Secondary

School. He was born on 21.10.1114 (Malayalam Era). In all school certificate, his date of birth is correctly entered in Malayalam Era as

21.10.1114. However, while entering his date of birth in English Era it was wrongly entered as 7.5.1939 instead of 4.6.1939. The said mistake is

crept in S.S.L.C. Book, wherein his date of birth is 7.5.1939 instead of 4.6.1939. He submitted many representations before the secondary

school authorities seeking rectification of the mistake. According to the petitioner, he is not seeking any change of Date of Birth, but only

rectification of mistake in the S.S.L.C. Book and Service Register. In the above circumstances, he has approached this court to issue necessary

direction for correction of Date of Birth in the S.S.L.C. by order dated 2.2.1995 this Court has ordered Notice of Motion. After service of notice,

the above writ petition is posted for hearing.

I have heard Mr. Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Edn.) for Respondent 1 and 2.

The only contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though his date of birth is correctly mentioned in all the certificates as

21.10.1114 Malayalam Era, the same is wrongly mentioned 4.6.1939 instead of 7.4.1939 in English Era.

In those circumstances, according to the petitioner, the delay in approaching the authorities or before this court is not fatal. On the other hand,

the learned Government Advocate submitted that even though the petitioner has joined the service even in the year 1973, he has not taken any

steps all along and the present move at the fag end of the retirement cannot be countenanced.

I have, carefully considered the rival submissions.

There is no dispute that the petitioner who is a holder of two post graduate degrees joined the third respondent school in the year 1973. From

1981, he was acting as post graduate teacher in the same school. Even though he is having higher educational qualifications, he has not taken any

care to verify the correct date of birth immediately after completion of S.S.L.C. As a matter of fact, on the representation made by the petitioner to

the Director of School Education, the director has correctly informed that, ""the change of date of birth in S.S.L.C. cannot be entertained after the

pupil has completed his secondary school leaving certificate course appearing for the S.S.L.C. public examination"". The petitioner has not

explained why he has not taken any steps from 1973 onwards. The bald statement that he came to know only recently cannot be accepted.

As a matter of fact, the Apex Court in a decision reported in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar 1995 II CLR 250 and in Chief

Medical Officer v. Khader Khadri 1985 I CLR 771, has held that the court should not encourage and entertain the petition for correction of date

of birth at the fag end of serving with object of continuing in service. The following observation of the decision of the Supreme Court in 1995 II

CLR 250 is very relevant for the disposal of the present case and the same is extracted hereunder :

Ordinarily High Courts should not, in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ application/petition filed by an employee of the

Government or its instrumentality, towards the fag end of his service, seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his ''Service and Leave

Record'' of Service Register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of retirement"".

In the other case, namely, Chief-Medical Officer v. Khader Khadri 1995 I CLR 771, the date of birth was given and recorded in the Service

Register in the year 1951, but correction is sought only in the year 1991. The Supreme Court rejected the request of the petitioner therein, since

the employee did not avail the opportunity to have it corrected as per the procedure prescribed by executive instructions and later replaced by

rules.

In our case, also, though the petitioner has joined the service in the year 1973 with the third respondent school, he did not take any steps to get

his date of birth corrected in the S.S.L.C. book.

As observed by the Apex Court in the above referred decisions, it is not open to this Court to entertain the request of the petitioner who has

approached this Court at the fag end of his carrier. In those circumstances, the objection of the Learned Government Advocate is well founded.

Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, and consequently, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

W.M.P. Nos. 2436 of 1995 and 8962 of 1997 stand dismissed.

Petition dismissed.