K S SAMBANDAM Vs. COLLECTOR THANJAVUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit to declare that his correct date of birth is 20th September 1936 and not 29th September 1931 and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants and their officials to make suitable corrections regarding the said date of birth in the plaintiff's service register, SSLC book, etc. The plaintiff was recruited through Tamilnadu Public Service Commission as Statistical Officer in the Department of Statistics at Madras. The 2nd defendant is the Head of the Department. The plaintiff is the third son of one Sivasamy Onthiriyar of Kalvikudi Village through his wife Sethu Ammal. Kalyana Sundaram was the eldest brother and Uthirapathy was the elder brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's parents were illiterate and they belong to Backward Kallar Community. When the plaintiff was admitted in the school, they were not careful enough to give the correct date of birth and they were also not aware of the consequences of the mistake. The plaintiff was born to the parents on 20th September 1936, but his date of birth was wrongly given as 29th September 1931 in the School records by his eldest brother at the time of admission. Without verifying the correctness of the same, the eldest brother had also signed in the age declaration form in SSLC book. The plaintiff sometime back applied to the concerned Registrar of Births about the alleged birth on 29.09.1931, and to his surprise he found that there was no entry for the birth of a male child to the plaintiff's parents on 29.09.1931. Kalyanasundaram was born on 22.06.1929 and his name is entered in the register of births. Uthirapathi was born on 01.05.1932, but there is no entry in the register of births. The plaintiff while searching for some documents in connection with the family members, found out the SSLC book of Uthirapathi and then he realised the mistake. The plaintiff later found out his horoscope in palmirah leaves which proved that the plaintiff was born only in 1936. The plaintiff submitted an application to the 1st defendant on 25.03.1986 to correct his date of birth as 20th September 1936 and the Tahsildar of Valangaiman also made due enquiry regarding the same and was satisfied about the correctness. The plaintiff also requested the 2nd defendant to send a reply for his letter. For reasons known, the 2nd defendant rejected the plaintiff's application. The plaintiff sent registered notice dated 13.09.1987 to all the defendants under section 80 of Civil Procedure Code. Hence the suit. The 2nd defendant contended that the plaintiff submitted an application on 25.03.1986 to the Collector of Thanjavur for alteration of date of birth and claimed his date of birth as 20.09.1936 instead of 29.09.1931, which was given in the school and office records. The Collector called for a report. Subsequently, they were forwarded to the Special Commissioner, Revenue Administration. After examining the case and scrutinizing the documents, the application of plaintiff for alteration of date of birth was rejected as it was belated and did not satisfy Rule 49(c) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The plaintiff was duly informed. After lapse of 25 years from the date of entry in the Government Service, the plaintiff has chosen to file a suit. He is due to retire on superannuation on 30.09.1989 after completing 58 years of age. The 3rd defendant stated that as per the Subsidiary Rule 5 of SSLC Scheme, request for alternation of date of birth cannot be considered after the pupil has completed his school course, sat for the SSLC public examination marks entered and the certificate completed. The parents could have taken necessary steps to rectify the mistake at the time of signing the declaration in the SSLC book. The plaintiff is no longer a student of any school coming under them. The plaintiff has not reported the fact in the plaint regarding the date of his admission and the age at the time of admission in the School. The suit is also barred by limitation. The suit as framed is not maintainable. The trial court framed 6issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked and on the side of the defendants, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked. The trial court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff and aggrieved against this, the defendants preferred A.S.No.71 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court, Kumbakonam and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiff has come forward with the present second appeal.

(3.) At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: