DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Vs. N MOHANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of Panchapakesa Aiyar J. on an application made by the respondent under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, for the issue of a mandate to the Director of Public Instruction, Madras, to carry out a correction of the entry in toe S. S. L. C. book of his date of birth, so as to make it read as 2610- 1931 instead of 8-3-1930. The allegations made by the respondent in the affidavit filed by him in support of his application were that he passed his S. S. L. C. examination in March 1948 and subsequently became a graduate of the Madras University, that he recently noticed that his date of birth had been wrongly entered in his S. S. L. C. book as 8-3-1930, that this was due to a pure slip and mistake, that he was filling a certificate copy of his date of birth and that the Tahsildar had made the necessary correction in his records. He stated that in reply to a communication to the Director of Public Instruction to make the correction he received a reply directing him to secure an order to that effect from a competent Civil Court. On behalf of the Director of Public Instruction, the Superintendent in the office filed a counter affidavit in which the allegation that the correct date of birth of the applicant was 20-10-1931 was not admitted and objection was taken to the maintainability of the application. The objection is thus set out;

(2.) Before the applicant is entitled to an order under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, he should establish that all the requirements contained in Clauses (a) to (h) of that section are satisfied. One of such requirements is that the doing of the specific act required to be done is; "under any law for the time being in force, clearly incumbent on such person........ in his.... public character." We asked learned counsel for the respondent under what law in force was it clearly incumbent on the Director of Public Instruction to carry nut the correction. Learned counsel could only refer to a rule framed by the S. S. L. C, Board, apparently with the approval of the Government. The material parts of subsidiary Rule 5, which is the only relevant rule, are as follows:

(3.) The learned Advocate General has brought to our notice two Government orders hearing on this point. One is G. O. No. MS, 954, Edn. dated 23-6-1941. It runs as follows: