P RAMASAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 8.4.1992 and 22.12.1994 passed by the second and first respondent respectively with a direction to the respondents to alter the date of birth of the petitioner in the service register as 5.4.1950 instead of 9.6.1948 and confer all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner joined in the Government service as Sub-Registrar in the Registration Department on 22.10.1977 and was promoted as District Registrar on 1.2.1992. THE case of the petitioner is that at the time of joining in service his date of birth was wrongly entered in the service register based on the entry made in the SSLC book and within five years of entry into service, he applied for alteration of the date of birth by submitting representation dated 6.5.1992. THE said request was rejected on the ground that when compared with the birth certificate submitted by the petitioner with the original register maintained by the registration department, it was found that the name of 'Arjunan' was found written and the same was scored, authenticated and the name of the petitioner 'Ramasamy' was found substituted. Petitioner preferred appeal before the first respondent, which was also dismissed by order dated 22.12.1994. Hence the petitioner has filed the original application before the Tribunal, which is now transferred to this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on 28.1.1949 triple children born to the petitioner's parents for which also birth extract is available and 28.1.1949 being the date of birth of the triple children, there is no possibility of giving birth to the petitioner on 9.6.1948 and therefore there is a presumption in favour of the petitioner that his date of birth is 5.4.1950. THE learned counsel also submitted that the correction in the birth register is only change of name and it will not materially affect the date of birth of the petitioner and therefore the respondents ought not to have rejected the request of the petitioner on mere suspicion. THE learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was not allowed to retire on 30.6.2006 by issuing G.O.(2D)No.76, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 30.6.2006 due to the pendency of grave charges and if the writ petition is allowed, he could continue in service till 30.4.2008.