S KANNAN Vs. METRO TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this writ petition is to quash the order in memo No. 8762/pa. Pi ( Po )1/ma. Po. Ka/97 dt. 6. 7. 98 of the second respondent retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 31. 10. 98 and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service upto 31. 10. 2005.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the pleadings are as follows. (a) Petitioner was born on 29. 10. 1947 and he belongs to backward class community. He studied upto SSLC (11th Standard " Old pattern) and his SSLC certificate mentions his date of birth as 29. 10. 1947. Petitioner registered his name in the Employment Exchange, Cuddalore, and his name was sponsored in the year 1975 for selection to the post of conductor. According to the petitioner, candidates belonging to BC community were eligible for appointment for the post of conductor, if they were below 33 years of age and for SC, ST candidates the age restriction was 35 years and in case of open competition, the maximum age prescribed was 30 years of age. (b) Petitioner being a backward class candidate and his age was below 33 years in the year 1975, his name was sponsored by the employment Exchange and he was selected and appointed as Conductor by order dated 8. 5. 1975. According to the petitioner, at the time of joining in the post, he furnished his SSLC book and the date of birth in the bio-data stating that his date of birth was 29. 10. 1947. (c) It is further stated in the affidavit that service register was opened and the petitioner was not given a chance to verify the date of birth entry made in the service register. In the year 1984, the pay bill section, shown the petitioner"s date of birth as 29. 10. 1949. THE said recording of Date of Birth is a mistate committed by the respondent. (d) Petitioner, while serving in Adyar Depot, received a communication dated 27. 10. 1997 from the Head Office that the petitioner will be retiring on 31. 10. 1998 as he is allegedly completing 58 years of age and at that time, petitioner submitted a representation to correct the petitioner's date of birth as 29. 10. 1947 as per the entry in his SSLC book and transfer certificate. THE Assistant Manager (Personnel) by communication dated 23. 3. 1998 requested the petitioner to produce the original SSLC certificate and transfer certificate issued by the School. Petitioner produced the same. However, he failed to pass any order and requested the petitioner to make representation to the Managing Director, pursuant to which, petitioner submitted a representation on 15. 4. 1998 to the Managing Director and requested him to treat his date of birth as 29. 10. 1947 and not as 29. 10. 1940. (e) THE second respondent passed imugned order dated 6. 7. 1998 stating that petitioner's date of birth as per their record is 29. 10. 1940 and he has to retire on 31. 10. 1998. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Managing Director on 4. 8. 1998 and no order is passed in the appeal. Hence the petitioner filed the above writ petition and challenged the order of second respondent with a further direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service upto 31. 10. 2005.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents produced the original service register as well as service rules and also cited judgments to support his contention that belated claims made by the employees to correct the date of birth at the fag end of their service shall not be entertained.