AMEER HAJA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the service as Forest Apprentice Trainee on 4.11.1977. His date of birth, as per school and college records, is 8.11.1955. According to the petitioner, his actual date of birth is 28.6.1957. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application for correction of date of birth on 6.1.1978. As per the direction of the second respondent, the petitioner resubmitted an application for change of date of birth in a revised form on 28.9.1979, followed by another form on 12.7.1984. Since there was a delay in processing the application, the petitioner filed WP.No.26114 of 2008 seeking a direction to pass orders on his application and the said writ petition was ordered on 4.11.2008 directing the respondents to pass orders on merits within 12 weeks. The Sub Collector, by a communication dated 29.6.2011, recommended to the Government for alteration of petitioner's date of birth as 28.6.1957. The Principal Secretary to Government/Commissioner for Revenue Administration on 29.10.2011 wrote to the second respondent, requesting the second respondent to get consent from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to alter the date of birth of the petitioner. The second respondent on 14.11.2011 and 9.3.2012 sent communications to the TNPSC seeking consent for alteration of date of birth of the petitioner. On 22.4.2013, the TNPSC gave consent for change of date of birth of the petitioner as 28.6.1957 instead of 8.11.1955. However, the second respondent rejected the request for change of date of birth. The said order is being challenged before this court.

(2.) MR .V.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's contention is supported by the birth certificate issued by the local authority. After realising the fact that the date of birth was wrongly given, within five years from the date of joining in service, the petitioner applied for alternation of date of birth on 6.1.1978 and followed by many representations. He referred to Rule 49 of the Tamilnadu Subordinate Service Rules and submitted that the petitioner filed the application within five years for change of date of birth with required documents in support of his claim and therefore, it cannot be rejected. That apart, he would submit that the Sub Collector, after enquiry and verifying the documents, recommended on 29.6.2011 to the government for alteration of date of birth of the petitioner as 28.6.1957 and the other authorities also accepted the said contention. He would submit that, in fact, the second respondent sent the communications seeking consent of the TNPSC for alteration of date of birth of the petitioner, which was also given by the TNPSC. However, contrary to the facts and Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules, the impugned order has been passed and therefore, it has to be quashed.

(3.) HEARD the parties and perused the records. It is seen from the records that the petitioner's date of birth as per the school and college records is 8.11.1955. It is stated in paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 8.11.1955 as per the transfer certificate issued by the St. Xavier College, Palayamkottai during March 1976. The petitioner also gave the same date of birth to the TNPSC, while applying for competent examination to the post of Forest Apprentice Trainee during 1977. In the service book also the petitioner acknowledged the original date of birth as 8.11.1955. Therefore, it is evident at every stage that the petitioner consciously declared his date of birth as 8.11.1955. Hence, he is estopped from denying his declared date of birth.