K SATHURU SANKARAVELAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he was selected for appointment to the post of Art Master, on 10.9.81, in the Government Higher Secondary School, Ayakkaranpulam, and from the date of the said appointment, he has been carrying on his duties, without any blemish. While so, the petitioner had applied for alteration of his date of birth from 5.3.54 to 5.3.55, as his date of birth was wrongly entered in his school and service records, on the basis of the declaration made by his father. THE petitioner had forwarded an application for the alteration of his date of birth, in the prescribed format, along with the necessary documents to support his claim. In the birth extract obtained from the records maintained by the Sub Registrar, Vedaraniam, it is clear that the date of birth of the petitioner is 5.3.55. As the birth certificate is a public document, which is unimpeachable, the petitioner had forwarded a succession certificate, dated 28.9.84, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vedaraniam, to prove that the date of birth of the petitioner is 5.3.55 and not 5.3.54, as shown in the school records. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the actual date of birth, he had submitted an application, along with the necessary documents, in support of his claim. In reply to the application, dated 31.1.94, forwarded by the petitioner, the fourth respondent has passed the impugned order in his proceedings, A.Ti.Mu.No.1508/A4/94, dated 21.4.94, even without conducting an enquiry or directing the revenue authorities to conduct an enquiry to find out the facts, with regard to the merits of the case. THE fourth respondent has given an independent finding that the application has not been made within five years, as per the relevant rules applicable to the case. THE fourth respondent ought to have gathered the reasons for the delay by giving an opportunity to the petitioner. However, without doing so, he has passed the impugned order, which is arbitrary, ultravires and illegal.

(3.) IN THE SECRETARY & COMMISSIONER Vs. R.KIRUBAKARAN, (1994) Supp (1) SCC 155), the Supreme Court has held as follows: