AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—Petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to alter the date of birth in his
service register.
According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a clerk in Madurai Taluk Cooperative Marketing Society on 1.4.1971. In the service register,
his date of birth has been entered as 16.4.1945. The petitioner further contends that his parents are illiterate and had inadvertently recorded his
date of birth as 16.4.1945 in the SSLC book. But in fact his actual date of birth is 17.2.1948. He was now working as Deputy Regional Manager,
T.N.C.S.C., Madurai. He was due to retirement on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years as per the entry in the SSLC Book as
30.4.2003. But as per his actual date of birth, he was due to retire on 28.2.2006. The date as entered in the service register as 16.4.1945 is
wrong. He further contends that during casual talk with his mother on 21.8.2002 regarding his retirement, he was informed that the correct date of
birth was not the one as in the school register and that his mother told him to search for the records in his house. It was found from the birth
extracts of his brothers and sisters that he was the fourth child to his parents and that his first brother''s date of birth is 30.9.1942, his second elder
brother''s date of birth is 3.3.1945 and his elder sister''s date of birth is 15.7.1946. Immediately he applied for a certificate of his date birth to the
Sub Registrar Officer, Thamaraipatti and he came to understand that his correct date of birth is 17.2.1948. it was only then according to the
petitioner it was found that a bonafide mistake had been committed by his parents. He filed a suit in O.S. No. 796 of 2002 on the file of the
Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai seeking declaration of his date of birth is 17.2.1948. The suit was decreed declaring the petitioner''s
date of birth is 17.2.1948. The petitioner''s request to declare the correct date of birth to the first respondent was rejected and hence the above
writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by a decree dated 27.3.2003, the petitioner had obtained the necessary declaration and hence,
the same was binding on the respondents.
Learned counsel also relies on the judgment reported in Government of Tamilnadu v. S. Marimuthu 2003 (2) CTC 103 and submits that this
court has the power to grant the relief as prayed for. In the judgment of the Division Bench after considering the issue of limitation, it was held that
the limitation was not applicable, to persons who had joined in service before 19.8.1970.
Though the petitioner in the original affidavit had admitted the fact that he was appointed on 1.7.1991, in the additional affidavit which has been
filed by the petitioner, it is stated that he has joined duty on 1.1.1970 itself. Along with the additional affidavit, the petitioner has also filed typed set
of papers, in which he has enclosed appointment orders dated 25.2.1970 and 6.8.1970. The said appointment orders obtained by him are only for
temporary employment on consolidated pay without any claim to the post. He was clearly informed that the posting is purely temporary and likely
to be terminated, without any notice. It is only by subsequent order dated 26.4.1971, he was regularly appointed as a clerk with effect from
1.4.1971. Therefore, the attempt on the part of the petitioner to show that he has been appointed in the year 1970 cannot be sustained. The
petitioner has apparently come forward with the said contention in the additional affidavit only on the basis of the decision of the Division Bench.
I have also examined the materials submitted in support of the claim of the petitioner. The birth certificate has been obtained by him on
29.8.2002.
Even the suit filed by the petitioner does not appear to be bonafide nor is it helpful to the petitioner. He has impleaded only the Educational
Department and not his employer. The judgment has been rendered practically uncontested and therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to rely
upon the decree. He has deliberately not impleaded the employer and hence, the decree is not binding on the employer. Even the decree is not
helpful to the petitioner in any manner. Though a declaration is granted that his date of birth is 17.2.1948, his prayer for correction of date of birth
in the SSLC Book as well as to declare the letter of rejection dated 13.9.2002 as invalid, on the request of the petitioner by the Director of School
Education has been rejected. Much less is there any decree against the employer, who has been purposely not impleaded as a party. Learned
District Munsif had also adversely commented about the conduct of the plaintiff in having filed the suit only when he was about to retire, having
obtained certificates relating to the birth and death of his brothers and sisters in 1963 itself and that he had kept them back all these years for some
ulterior purpose.
I am inclined to hold that this sort of practice of Government Servants seeking alteration of the date of birth only at the fag end of their career, is
deplorable. In this case the request for alteration of date of birth is to retain himself in service for nearly three more years. The very basis of the
contention that just prior to the retirement while talking to his mother, he came to know about the true date of birth is artificial and not acceptable.
The very reason as to why limitation was prescribed was to prevent the growing trend of such belated and improper attempts being made by the
Government servants. Date of birth of a Government servant is a very important factor in Government Service. At the time of recruitment, age is
taken into account not only for comparative assessment for the very appointment itself, but also for fixing seniority. For instance, in this case itself, if
his immediate junior is younger to him by one year and his year of birth is 1946, by now changing the year of birth in favour of the petitioner from
1945 to 1948, his junior completely looses his placement in the seniority to move above the petitioner and will also probably loose all chances of
promotion, because he has to retire before the petitioner. It will therefore be totally unjust to entertain such requests for changing the date of birth
at the time of the date of retirement.
In result, writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, no order is necessary in W.P.M.P. No. 14708 of 2003 and the same is closed.