(Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the first respondent in Letter No.9129/Nir.1/2017 dated 22.05.2019 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to alter the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Records as 21.12.1963 instead of 10.06.1961 and consequently allow the petitioner to continue in service till the date of his retirement based on the actual date of birth 21.12.1963 with all consequential and other attendant benefits and to pass orders.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on joining the respondent service on 17.05.1991, he had submitted an application on 16.06.1994, seeking for correction of date of birth entered in his service record, at the time of joining, from 10.06.1961 to 21.12.1963 which is his correct date of birth as per the certificate of birth dated 25.05.1994 issued by the Sub Registrar, Vadipatti, under Section 12/17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969; that despite the petitioner submitting an application seeking correction of date of birth, enclosing therewith the certificate of the Sub Registrar, his date of birth had not been corrected in his service record to the actual date of birth, which action of the respondent, is contended as highly illegal, contrary, causing prejudice to the petitioner, inasmuch as on account of entry of wrong date of birth in his service records, the petitioner would be required to retire from service at an early age.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that at the time of seeking admission into the School, his parents inadvertently gave his date of birth as 10.06.1961 instead of 21.12.1963, as his parents who were uneducated agriculturists; that his elder brother carried the same date of birth in the School records; and that, he had submitted application seeking alteration of date of birth, within a period of five years from the date of entering into service as required under Rule 49 of General Rules. (now Section 59 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions Service) Act, 2016).

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent having accepted his application and also he having submitted the required document, ought not to have kept the matter pending, without causing verification and on the petitioner submitting a representation once again on 19.06.2017, the respondent by causing enquiry, rejected his request for correction of date of birth by the impugned proceedings, dated 22.05.2019.

5. Assailing the action of the respondent, this writ petition is filed.

6. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent is filed.

7. The respondent, by the counter affidavit, while denying the writ averments contended that the petitioner on being selected and appointed as Assistant Public Relation Officer in the Department of Information and Public Relation Department vide G.O.Ms.No.564, Information and Tourism (Admin.2) Department, dated 17.05.1991, at the time of joining service had mentioned his date of birth as 10.06.1961 along with the required document and the same was entered in his service register; that the petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application dated 16.06.1994, to alter his date of birth as 21.12.1963 instead of 10.06.1961, enclosing there with the birth certificate obtained from the office of the Sub Registrar, Vadipatti, dated 25.05.1994, and that, on the verification caused by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the authority did not find the name of the petitioner in the extract.

8. The respondent, by the counter affidavit, further contended that on receiving the application from the petitioner on 16.06.1994 for change of date of birth, have called upon the petitioner to provide details of proof of date of birth, place of birth and Secondary School Leaving Certificate and the same were received from the petitioner on 18.08.1994, while the Secondary School Leaving Certificate was received on 23.01.1995 and the petitioner, thereafter, kept silent and gave a further representation only on 19.06.2017.

9. The respondent, by the counter affidavit, contended that on receiving the aforesaid representation from the petitioner, the respondent, by letter dated 28.06.2017, called upon the petitioner to furnish all the relevant documents and on receiving the said document, the same were forwarded to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration on 03.07.2017 to find the genuinity of documents; that the third respondent vide his letter dated 18.07.2017, requested the second respondent to furnish all the documents in appropriate format and in turn, the second respondent forwarded the same to the petitioner and received the document on 27.07.2017 and furnished the same to the third respondent on 02.08.2017.

10. The respondent, by the counter affidavit, further contended that on the second respondent forwarding the documents to the third respondent, the third respondent, by his letter dated 21.03.2019, submitted his report recommending to reject the request of the petitioner, based on the fact that the petitioner would have neither completed five years of age, at the time of admission in the 1st standard in the year 1966 nor have completed 15 years of age to write 10th Standard examination in the year 1976, as he did not produce any conclusive proof to his claim to alter his date of birth as 21.12.1963, instead of the one recorded in his service register.

11. By the counter affidavit, it is further stated that the birth extract produced by the petitioner in SI.No.22 on 21.12.1963 in Mattaparai Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindugal District, did not contain the name of the petitioner, as per the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as per his report dated 14.12.2017 and a detailed report dated 04.02.2019.

12. The respondent, by the counter affidavit, contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer further reported that the petitioner studied 6th to 10th Standard from 1973 to 1978 in the Government Higher Secondary School, Mattapparai Village, as per the certificate issued by the Head Master on 06.07.2017, but, the petitioner wrote 10th Standard examination in Pandiyarajapuram Government High School in March 1980 and passed vide certificate dated 30.05.1980.

13. The respondent, by the counter affidavit, further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.1296, Education Department, dated 16.06.1960, any child seeking admission should have completed five years of age as on 31st July of the admission year; that the education certificate issued by the Head Master, Panchayat Union Primary School, Mattapari, dated 07.07.2017, shows that the petitioner studied 1 st to 3rd Standard from the year 1966 to 1970 and 4th and 5th Standard in the years 1971 to 1973 respectively; that the petitioner could not have been admitted into School in 1966, if he was born on 21.12.1963, as he would be only 2½ years by then; that the petitioner had discontinued his studies and completed 10th Standard after four years i.e. in the year 1980 and if the petitioner continued to study without break, he would have written 10th Standard in the year 1976 itself, when he was 12½ years old, while as per the Government Order, the required age is the completion of 15 years.

14. The respondent, by the counter affidavit, contended that the petitioner would have neither completed 5 years of age, at the time of admission into 1st Standard in the year 1966 nor completed 15 years to write the examination of 10th Standard in the year 1976, if he had completed his studies without discontinuing. It is for the said reason, the third respondent had recommended to reject the request of the petitioner regarding alteration of date of birth and on the aforesaid recommendation, the first respondent had issued impugned proceedings, by duly considering all the aspects and as such, the impugned order does not call for any interference and thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

15. I have taken note of the respective contentions as urged.

16. Though the petitioner had claimed that on joining the service, he having submitted application seeking correction of date of birth within five years and also submitting the documents as sought for by the respondent by 23.01.1995, it is not shown to this Court, as to why, the petitioner kept silent for a period over two decades, till he submitted a further representation on 19.06.2017. No explanation is forthcoming from the petitioner either in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition or in his representation submitted on 19.06.2017.

17. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner did not take any action after having submitted his application initially on 16.06.1994, seeking correction of his date of birth, the respondent, however, on receiving the further representation of the petitioner on 19.06.2017, had forwarded the same to the third respondent as per Rule 49 of the General Rules to verify the claim of the petitioner. The third respondent, being the competent authority, to cause investigation and having submitted his report that the claim of the petitioner, his correct date of birth as 21.12.1963, cannot be accepted, on account he having joined School in the year 1966 and also the fact that if he had continued his education without break, would have completed his 10th Standard in the year 1976, by which time, he would only be 12½ years, found the claim of the petitioner to be incorrect.

18. Further, the enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer also revealed that the birth extract produced by the petitioner did not contain the name of the petitioner and also the claim of the petitioner that his elder brother’s date of birth is same as the date of birth recorded in his service records has not been proved, recommended for rejection of the claim of the petitioner. It is on the basis of the aforesaid recommendation of the third respondent, the first respondent had issued impugned proceedings. Though the petitioner by the present petition had assailed the action of the third respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings, however, did not lay any challenge to the enquiry caused by the third respondent and its officer, who are the competent authorities as per Rule 49 of the General Rules to cause investigation in the matters of alteration of date of birth. The petitioner, without assailing the correctness or otherwise of investigation conducted by the third respondent, cannot lay a challenge to the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent, which is only a consequential proceedings issued, pursuant to the report submitted by the third respondent in terms of Rule 49 of General Rules.

19. Insofar as the reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18499 of 2016 dated 28.02.2023 is concerned, it is to be noted that the facts in the said case are entirely at variance with the facts of the present case. In the said case, based on the application, submitted an enquiry came to be conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, in his detailed enquiry report, opined that the petitioner’s correct date of birth is 15.07.1960 and not 15.05.1958 as recorded in his service register and in spite of the aforesaid report being given by the competent authority under Rule 49 of the General Rules, the concerned authority not having altered the date of birth, this Court had held the action of the authority in not altering the date of birth of the petitioner therein, cannot be countenanced.

20. In the facts of the present case, the authority under Rule 49 of the General Rules, who is required to cause investigation and submit a report, having categorically stated that the claim of the petitioner, cannot be accepted, the aforesaid decision does not advance the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17792 of 2004, dated 11.07.2017, in relation to the date of birth had held as under:

                            “9. Under the guise of Service Rules, alteration of date of birth is sought for. The yardstick applied in the case on hand may not be applicable in all cases. It is made clear that a person, who seeks alteration of his date of birth, should have completed 15 years of age while appearing for 10th Standard Examination and if it is found that the person concerned has not satisfied the said age criteria, the employer of the person concerned can very well cancel the appointment order issued to such person and discharge him/her from service without any monetary benefits due to him/her.”

21. Further, the petitioner having submitted his application initially on 16.06.1994 and keeping quiet thereafter, for over two decades and having submitted further application once again in the year 2017, at the fag end of his service and approaching this Court on being rejected based on the report of the Revenue Authorities only goes to show that the petitioner intended to cling onto his seat, without gracefully retiring from service, on attaining the age of superannuation. If only the further direction as issued by this Court in the aforementioned W.P.No.17792 of 2004, is applied to the petitioner's case, would result in the petitioner appointment to the post, has to be cancelled and the petitioner would not be entitled for being granted for any monetary benefits. However, this Court is restraining itself from passing any such direction.

22. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.