IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 7.8.2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Writ Appeal No.854 of 2009 S.Damodaran .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Law Department Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Chennai 600 009. 2. The Secretary to Government Public Works Department Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Chennai 600 009. 3. The Secretary to Government Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Chennai 600 009. .. Respondents/Respondents ----- Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28.4.2009 made in W.P.No.8078 of 2009 Presented to this Court U/A 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to the oder passed by the 1st respondent in Letter No.31885/OP III/90 Law (OP III) Department dated 17.9.2001 and consequential order passed by the 1st respondent in Letter No.969/S/P/2001 Law (OP III) Department dated 18.7.2002 and consequential order in Letter No.308/S/P/OP.III/2003-1 dated 30.9.2005 and quash the same and further directing the respondents herein to alter my date of birth in the service records as 8.1.1953 instead of 15.06.1951 based on the decree passed by the Hon'ble City Civil Court Chennai in OS No.1539 of 1978 dated 20.2.1979. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant : Mr.A.L.Somayaji, S.c. For Mr.S.T.S.Murthi For Respondents : Mr.D.Sreenivasan, Addl.G.P. ----- J U D G M E N T (Delivered by S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.) An application for alteration of date of birth having rejected, the appellant preferred a writ petition, which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 28.4.2009 on the ground that the said application was much belated, vide more than five years of entry into service. It appears that the appellant was appointed in the service of the State in the year 1974. Interestingly, the father of the appellant was impleaded as a defendant in a suit preferred by the appellant (O.S.No.1539 of 1978). The Union Public Service Commission was impleaded as third defendant and was given up by the appellant. The State Government, impleaded as defendants 4 and 5, remained exparte. On the basis of the statement of the father, a decree was passed on 20.2.1979 declaring the date of birth of the petitioner as 8.1.1953 and not 15.6.1951. Except a mere declaration, no other relief was granted to the appellant in the said suit. 2. The representation of the appellant dated 19.12.1990 seeking alteration of the entry relating to his date of birth in his service record was rejected summarily on 17.9.2001 in terms of Rule 49(b) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Sub-ordinate Services on the ground that the application was not presented within five years of entry into service. 3. Before this Court, a plea was taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant preferred a representation as back as on 4.9.1979, which is well within five years from the date of entry into service. This Court, directed the respondents to produce the original records which has been produced. The records have also been perused by the learned counsel for the appellant. From the records, it appears that the first representation was filed by the appellant on 19.12.1990 for change of date of birth. In the said letter, it was mentioned that he applied for change of date of birth on 4.9.1979. A reminder was also given on 27.12.1990. Further, it appears that the respondents, having received such letter, requested the appellant to furnish evidence to show that he had made request to the Public Works Department on 4.9.1979. Reminders were also given to the appellant including the reminder https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 30.6.1998. But the appellant failed to produce any evidence to show that he represented on 4.7.1979. 4. Apart from the above said fact, it has been brought to the notice that the appellant had now retired from service and he has preferred the writ petition in April 2009, just two months prior to his retirement, viz. June 2009. 5. In the aforesaid background, we find that no case is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Secretary to Government Law Department Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Chennai 600 009. 2. The Secretary to Government Public Works Department Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Chennai 600 009. 3. The Secretary to Government Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Chennai 600 009. +1cc to Mr.S.T.S.Murthy, Advocate Sr 36507 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 37068 PUR(CO) km/26.8. W.A.No.854 of 2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/