RAFEEK GULAM MOHIDEEN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.S.Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

(2.) Writ Petition No.18462 of 2003 is in respect of the claim of the age by the petitioner. The petitioner was born, according to him, on 23.1.1950, but the date of birth had been entered as 19.4.1948. According to the petitioner, that was absurd because, his parents were married on 28.1.1949, in support of which claim, he also probably filed a copy of the marriage invitation of his parents.

(3.) The petitioner undoubtedly entered the service in the year 1975 as a Grade-II Police Constable, was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in 1981 and became Head Constable in 1994. The petitioner became entitled under the rules, to vie for the post of Sub-Inspector only after completion of four years of service as Head Constable and that would take the matter to 1998. However, it is an admitted position that owing to the earlier inaction on the part of the Government, right from 1985 to 1996, there was no exercise of holding range promotion and in 1998-2000 also, there was no exercise of holding range promotions. For the first time in 2001, that opportunity came to the petitioner for competing for the post of Sub-Inspector, but unfortunately, on the required date, he was over-aged by 45 days. He therefore approached the Tribunal challenging the constitutionality of Rule 3(2)(d) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. At the same time, he also raised a dispute regarding his date of birth and sought a declaration that his date of birth was liable to be altered. This, he claimed on the basis of a decree passed in O.S.13/98 by District Munsif, Andipatti dated 29.7.1998.