1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:16.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA WP(MD)No.13022 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1&2 of 2011 S.P.Ramamurthy :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The State of Tamilnadu rep. By the Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Director General of Police, Chennai-4. :Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in connection with the order passed by him in his Proc.Rc.No.242249/GB.V(1)2011 dated 27.10.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to alter the date of birth of the petitioner from 01.02.1954 to 12.02.1955 in his service register and consequently, allow him to continue in service as per the original date of birth i.e., 12.02.1955. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Marivel For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Janarthanan,Addl. Govt. Pleader ORDER The petitioner viz., S.P.Ramamurthy aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent in Proc.Rc.No.242249/GB.V(1)2011 dated 27.10.2011, has filed the present writ petition to quash the same with further direction to the respondent to alter the date of birth of the petitioner from 01.02.1954 to 12.02.1955 in his service register with further consequential direction to allow him to continue in service as per the original date of birth i.e., 12.02.1955. 2.The petitioner, who is serving as Additional Superintendent of Police Enforcement, Dindigul District, was originally recruited as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1976 and he has been awarded with the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Police Medal for Meritorious Service and earned 331 rewards including 8 MSEs. While so, the petitioner's father passed away on 16.02.2011, only at that time of his illness, his father told him that his date of birth was wrongly entered in his school records as 01.02.1954 instead of 12.02.1955. Subsequently, he has also found out the horoscope wherein, his date of birth has been mentioned as 12.02.1955. Only after seeing the date of birth in his old horoscope, he came to know that the date of birth mentioned in his service record was wrong, accordingly, the petitioner made a representation dated 11.10.2011 to the second respondent requesting him to alter his date of birth in his service register from 01.02.1954 to 12.02.1955 and he has also produced the horoscope. According to him the Horoscope is an admissible evidence subject to the proof of its authenticity. 3.But the second respondent without considering the petitioner's request, which is supported with acceptable documentary evidence has rejected the application, by stating Rule 49(c) of Tamilnadu State & https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Subordinate Service, is a stumbling block to entertain his belated application that his request to alter his date of birth after 35 years of entry into service is not legally maintainable. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner came to know about his correct date of birth only on 16.02.2011 from his father, who mentioned the correct date of birth as mentioned in the original Horoscope and immediately the petitioner has also checked-up and verified the same with the horoscope and thereafter, it was found that his date of birth has been mentioned as 12.02.1955. When the horoscope is also one of the admissible evidences, the petitioner immediately made an application along with horoscope on the basis of the ruling of the Apex Court in The Registrar General, High Court, Madras vs. M.Manickam and others, wherein it clearly says that horoscope, if produced with support of sufficient proof of its authenticity, the same may be accepted as a proof evidence. 5.The said argument may be correct to entertain the petitioner's application provided the petitioner has approached the second respondent within 5 years from the date of entry into service. But, in the case of the petitioner, admittedly he approached the second respondent by filing an application with an inordinate delay of 35 years from the date of entry into service, that too, without any supportive document like Secondary School Leaving Certificate, School, College or University records, birth extract from records of local bodies. Therefore, the Rule 49(c) clearly says that if any application received after 5 years from the date of entry into service, which is not supported by any entries in Secondary School Leaving Certificate, school records, the same will be summarily rejected Accordingly, the second respondent finding that his application was not supported by any school certificate, school or college records have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Director General of Police, Chennai-4. +1CC to Mr.N.Marivel, Advocate. SR.No.39923. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.40160. Ns RP/07.12.2011/2P/5C. W.P.(MD).No.13022 of 2011 16.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/