S DAMODARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application for alteration of date of birth having rejected, the appellant preferred a writ petition, which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 28.4.2009 on the ground that the said application was much belated, vide more than five years of entry into service. It appears that the appellant was appointed in the service of the State in the year 1974. Interestingly, the father of the appellant was impleaded as a defendant in a suit preferred by the appellant (O.S.No.1539 of 1978). The Union Public Service Commission was impleaded as third defendant and was given up by the appellant. The State Government, impleaded as defendants 4 and 5, remained exparte. On the basis of the statement of the father, a decree was passed on 20.2.1979 declaring the date of birth of the petitioner as 8.1.1953 and not 15.6.1951. Except a mere declaration, no other relief was granted to the appellant in the said suit.

(2.) The representation of the appellant dated 19.12.1990 seeking alteration of the entry relating to his date of birth in his service record was rejected summarily on 17.9.2001 in terms of Rule 49(b) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Sub-ordinate Services on the ground that the application was not presented within five years of entry into service.

(3.) Before this Court, a plea was taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant preferred a representation as back as on 4.9.1979, which is well within five years from the date of entry into service. This Court, directed the respondents to produce the original records which has been produced. The records have also been perused by the learned counsel for the appellant. From the records, it appears that the first representation was filed by the appellant on 19.12.1990 for change of date of birth. In the said letter, it was mentioned that he applied for change of date of birth on 4.9.1979. A reminder was also given on 27.12.1990. Further, it appears that the respondents, having received such letter, requested the appellant to furnish evidence to show that he had made request to the Public Works Department on 4.9.1979. Reminders were also given to the appellant including the reminder dated 30.6.1998. But the appellant failed to produce any evidence to show that he represented on 4.7.1979.