DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION Vs. N NADUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Rajasekar, Addl. Government Pleader for the petitioners. Inspite of service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of Respondent No.1 and his name has been printed in the list.

(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the Direction of School Education and the Chief Educational Officer against the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in O.A.No.367 of 1996, dated 22.6.2000. THE question relates to alteration of the date of birth of Respondent No.1.

(3.) RULE 49(c) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service RULEs, as it stands, contemplates that such application for alteration of date of birth can be filed within a period of five years from the date of entry into service. However, it is not in dispute that before 1970 such RULE 49(c), containing the period of limitation, was not in force. Therefore, the question is as to whether those persons entered into service before introduction of such period of limitation can file application for alteration of date of birth at any time. This matter is no longer res integra. In the decision reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 (STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. T.V. VENUGOPALAN), the Supreme Court has held that those persons, who entered into service before introduction of such period of limitation, are required to file an application for correction of date of birth within a period of five years from the date of introduction of such RULEs and they cannot wait indefinitely for making such application. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the application or litigation for correction of date of birth at the fag end, after long lapse of time, should not be entertained. This position is clear in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 6 SCC 49 (STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER v. SHIV NARAIN UPADHYAYA).