K V KALIAPPAN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to correct his date of birth in his Service Record as 29.10.1942 instead of 23.7.1940, as per the extract of Birth Register and in accordance with the procedure stipulated under Chapter IX and Chapter XXIV of the calendar of the respondent University.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he was appointed as a Professor of the respondent University on 19.2.1986. His date of birth has been entered in the Service Record as 23.7.1940, on the basis of S.S.L.C. book. He obtained an extract of Birth Register from the Sub Registrar, Dharapuram on 9.2.1977. He found that his correct date of birth was 29.10.1942 and his parents had furnished his date of birth as 23.7.1940, by mistake. THE entry in the Birth Register was that, ?male child? born to his parents on 29.10.1942. THE name of the child was given. Hence, he filed O.S.No.660 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif, Dharapuram praying for a general declaration that he is the only son of his parents and to correct his date of birth as 29.10.1942. THE learned District Munsif, Dharapuram granted a declaratory decree on 7.9.1981. Only when he realised that the date of birth in the Service Record of the University was to be corrected, he approached the University with the copy of the order in O.S.No.660 of 1980, in the year 1993, seeking correction of his date of birth in the Service Record. THEre was no specific provision in the Service Rules of the University about the procedure to be followed in correcting the date of birth of a teacher till 1995. Since his application for correction of date of birth was pending with University, he sent a letter dated 13.11.1995 requesting the University to correct his date of birth in accordance with the Rule adopted by the University on 25.3.1995. THE respondent by letter dated 23.9.1996 directed him to approach the Director of School Education to correct his S.S.L.C. book. Inasmuch as the procedure for correction of date of birth is now provided for under the Statutes and Ordinances issued by the University, the University is now bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the Statutes and Ordinances and cannot request him to get the S.S.L.C. book corrected as demanded by it. In such circumstances, having no other remedy has filed the above writ petition.

(3.) MR.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner by pointing out Clause 7(a) (iv) of Addition to Ordinance 7 under Chapter IX, Volume I, University Calendar, 1985 would contend that, on the basis of entry in the Birth Extract, respondent ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner instead of directing him to get the date of birth corrected in the S.S.L.C. book. It is true that on receipt of representation from the petitioner in the year 1993, the respondent after taking note of the fact that the University was not a party in the declaratory decree and also of the fact that the petitioner has not corrected his date of birth in the S.S.L.C. book, directed him to make necessary application before the Director of School Education for correction of his date of birth in the S.S.L.C. book and thereafter approach the respondent for further action. It is clear that, for correction of date of birth, the person has to make an application within five years from the date of entry into service and his application must be supported by entries in S.S.L.C., Book or University records, Birth extract from the records of Local Bodies or Military Discharge Certificate. I have already stated that the petitioner joined the service of the University in the year 1974. He secured decree in the year 1981 and he made his application for correction of his date of birth only in the year 1993. Admittedly, the petitioner had secured Birth Extract from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Dharapuram even on 9.2.1977. Since in the Birth Extract the name of the child was not mentioned, according to him he filed declaratory suit in O.S.No.660 of 1980 impleading his mother alone as party-defendant. As stated earlier, even the Court below has granted decree on 7.9.1981 and he also obtained certified copy in the year 1981, hence there is no acceptable explanation for not making necessary application for correction immediately thereafter. In the light of the above factual position, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.