J.GANESAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(3.) Mr.K.Elango, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules and submitted that the petitioner had made the application within a period of 5 years from his entry into the Government service on the strength of his birth certificate issued by the competent authority, which evidences the petitioner's date of birth was "15.08.1962". In this background, the learned counsel also placed reliance on the birth certificates issued to his siblings and by a comparative reference, pointed out that their certificates cannot by any manner, misused by the petitioner. It is also his submission that the District Collector had conducted an extensive enquiry and had relied on competent witnesses while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner's date of birth in the school record was erroneously mentioned as '15.08.1960' instead of '15.08.1962'. The learned counsel would submit that the report of the third respondent are on flimsy grounds, which are not based on any logical conclusion and since the original report of the Collector is based on evidences let in by competent witnesses and other material documents, the report of the Commissioner cannot be given any credence. He further submitted that the first respondent herein had not dealt with the findings of the District Collector and had simply concurred with the report of the third respondent without substantiating the facts of the case and hence requires to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of M.T.Ganesh Moorthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others passed in W.P.No.29669 of 2014, which came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.781 of 2019 dated 09.10.2020, laying the proposition that when the alteration of date of birth is based on reliable documents and there is no indication of an ulterior motive in the claim made for such alteration, the rejection for alteration of date of birth is improper. In another decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of S.Visalakshi Vs. The Commissioner of Chennai Corporation and others passed in W.P.No.268 of 2008, it was held that the authorities should give more importance to the public records than the School records.