IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 30-11-2009 Coram The Honourable Mrs.Justice R.BANUMATHI and The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.A.No.1536 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 S.Vijayakumar ... Appellant/ Petitioner Vs. 1. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2. The Commissioner/ Director of Employment and Training, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 3. The Director of Co-Operative Audit, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ... Respondents/ Respondents This writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.9.2009 in W.P.No.36347 of 2006 This Writ Petition is preferred U/A 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the II Respondent dated 7.10.96 issued in R.C.No.77042/Estt 3/96 and quash the same and direct the respondents to alter the date of Birth of the applicant from the existing dated 3.11.1951 to the correct date of 14.1.53 and to award the consequential reliefs.(O.A.No.3731 of 1998 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal). For Appellant : Mr.T.Arulraj For Respondents : Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N T N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order made by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.36347 of 2006 dated 30.9.2009, wherein the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, questioning the rejection of his claim to correct his date of birth as ‘14.1.1953’ instead of ‘3.11.1951’. 2. According to the appellant, he joined in the service of the Department of Employment and Training as Junior Assistant in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Karaikkudi, on 19.8.1987. He was promoted as Junior Co-Operative Auditor on 27.9.1995 and at the time of filing the original application before the Tribunal, he was working as Assistant Director of Co-Operative Audit, Madurai. 3. The appellant submitted an application to correct his date of birth as ‘14.1.1953’ instead of the entry made in his Service Register as ‘3.11.1951’. The said application was submitted on 4.8.1982 i.e., within five years of his entry into the service. Such a claim was made by the appellant based on his date of birth entry in the Register of Birth recorded as 14.1.1953 and in the Baptism Certificate issued by the Parish Priest of St.Joseph Church, Samayanallur. According to the appellant, in the year 1980 he converted to Hindu religion and a gazette notification was also issued to that effect in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 17.11.1980. 4. The application of the petitioner having been filed for correction of date of birth within five years, the Department conducted enquiry through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, who submitted a report and the same was considered by the second respondent and by order dated 7.10.1996, the appellant’s claim was rejected stating that even though it was claimed that at the time of admission of the appellant into the School, his grandfather said to have given the wrong date of birth, appellant’s father, who was in Government Service, signed in the declaration on 25.1.1969 while filling up the application for S.S.L.C examination, admitting that the appellant’s date of birth is 3.11.1951, and that in the Gazette notification published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 17.11.1980 also the appellant has given his date of birth as 3.11.1951 and therefore the claim made by the appellant is an afterthought and merely on the basis of the birth extract the appellant cannot contend that his actual date of birth is wrongly entered in the S.S.L.C certificate and in the service register. 5. The learned single Judge upheld the order of the second respondent and dismissed the writ petition, against which this writ appeal is filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the birth extract published by the appellant contains appellant’s date of birth as 14.1.1953 and the appellant’s elder sister having born on 2.3.1951, the appellant’s date of birth could not be 3.11.1951 and in support of his contention he has also relied on the Baptism Certificate issued by the Parish Priest of St.Joseph Church, Samayanallur, dated 11.3.1998, wherein the date of birth of the appellant is entered as 14.1.1953. 7. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the date of birth entry relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in the Baptism certificate which was issued on 11.3.1998 i.e, after 18 years of his conversion to Hindu Faith, cannot be a valid piece of evidence. The learned Government Pleader submitted that if 14.1.1953 is the actual date of birth of the appellant, he ought to have got married at the age of 20, which is highly improbable. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the birth certificate produced by the appellant also did not contain the name of the appellant and it only mentions the birth of a male child to the appellant’s father and mother. The S.S.L.C certificate, the Gazette notification dated 17.11.1980, his service register dated 17.8.1987 clearly reveal the date of birth of the appellant as 3.11.1951. The appellant as well as his father are literate and therefore even if there is any mistake, nothing prevented the appellant or his father to correct the error if any, while filling up the application form for appearing in the S.S.L.C examination or giving his date of birth as 14.1.1953 while Gazette publication was made while he converted to Hindu Faith. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the learned Government Pleader. 9. The only document relied on by the appellant for correction of his date of birth entry in the Service Register is the birth extract obtained from the Sub-Registrar’s office, Cholavandan, which was issued on 26.8.1989. In the said certificate, the petitioner’s name is not mentioned, even though sex of the child is mentioned as ‘Male’. It is claimed that the date of birth of the appellant’s sister is mentioned as 2.3.1951. There also name of the appellant’s sister is not mentioned and sex of the child is mentioned as ‘Female’. The second respondent in the impugned order has observed that there is a gap of 22 months between the date of birth of the appellant and that of his sister and therefore there is every possibility of a child in between and therefore there is suspicion in the claim of the appellant. There is no answer for the said finding given by the second respondent from the side of the appellant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. The appellant has passed B.A. degree and his father was in Government Service. The declaration made in the S.S.L.C certificate is signed by the petitioner’s father, wherein the petitioner’s date of birth is clearly mentioned as 3.11.1951 and the appellants father has signed a declaration as follows: “I hereby declare that the particulars recorded against items 1 to 6 above are correct and that no change will be demanded in future.” Item No.4 is the date of birth column. The above said fact clearly establishes that the petitioner’s father has signed the said declaration after fully knowing that the appellant’s date of birth as 3.11.1951 and declaring that he will not demand any change in future. 11. The appellant converted to Hindu Faith through a Gazette declaration dated 17.11.1980 and the said declaration reads as follows: "Thiru S.Rethinam (Christian), son of I.Stanislaus, born on 3rd November, 1951 (native place: Samayanallur), residing at 64, West Street, Samayanallur Post, Madurai district, has reconverted to Hinduism with the name of S.Vijayakumar on 26th October, 1980." The said declaration was given by the appellant after passing B.A. degree, where he has declared his date of birth as 3.11.1951. Thus, there is a clear admission on the part of the appellant’s father as well as appellant that the appellant’s date of birth is 3.11.1951. The claim made by the appellant to correct his date of birth as 14.1.1953 is only an afterthought and the same was not accepted by the second respondent by giving valid reasons. There is no perversity in the findings given by the second respondent and the learned single Judge also rightly upheld the said order and rejected the writ petition. There is no perversity in the said orders warranting interference by us. 12. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2005) 3 SCC 702 (State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh) considered similar issue and in paragraph 12 held thus, "12. On the contrary, the statement contained in the admission register of the school as to the age of an individual on information supplied to the school authorities by the father, guardian or a close relative is more authentic evidence under Section 32 clause (5) unless it is established by unimpeachable contrary material to show that it is inherently improbable. The time of one's birth relates to the commencement of one's relationship by blood and a statement therefore of one's age made by a person having special means of knowledge, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relates to the existence of such relationship as that referred to in Section 32 clause (5)." 13. The request for correction of date of birth of a Government servant shall be strictly viewed as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decisions reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162 (Union of India v. Harnam Singh); (1994) 6 SCC 302 (State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan); (1997) 5 SCC 181 (State of Orissa and Others v. Ramanath Patnaik); (2003) 6 SCC 483 (State of U.P. and others v. Gulaichi (Smt.)); (2004) 3 SCC 394 (State of Punjab and Others v. S.C.Chadha); and 2006-1 LW 568 (State of U.P. and another v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya). 14. In the light of the above decisions of the Supreme Court and the findings given by us, we are of the view that the appellant has not made out any case for correction of his date of birth in his service register. 15. The writ appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.36347 of 2006 dated 30.9.2009 is confirmed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. Vr To 1. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2. The Commissioner/Director of Employment and Training, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 3. The Director of Co-Operative Audit, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 1 cc to Mr.T. Arulraj james, Advocate, SR. 64751 W.A.No.1536 of 2009 PVR (CO) kk 7/12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/