M RAJASEKAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No,6975 of 1996 dated 27.4.2004 as well as the order of the first respondent dated 29.11.1993 and 09.5.1995 and after setting aside the same to direct the first respondent to alter his date of birth from 05.4.1959 to 31.3.1961.

(2.) THE petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Special Officer in the rank of Joint Registrar in the Pudukottai District Central Co-operative Bank Limited. He filed O.A.No,6975 of 1996 seeking to challenge the order of the Government in refusing to grant his request for alteration of his date of birth from 05.4.1959 to 31.3.1961.

(3.) THE petitioner's request was referred to an enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai. He conducted a detailed enquiry and sent a report recommending for alteration. It was forwarded to the Commissioner for Revenue Administration who also sent his own recommendations. However, the Government by G.O.Ms.(D)No,657 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 29.11.1993 rejected the case of the petitioner. In that order, the State Government had stated that the petitioner's father was a Village Munsif and as he himself was responsible for recording birth and death since he was a designated Registrar under the Birth and Death Registration Act, there was no possibility of his committing any mistake of entering the date of birth. THE petitioner's mother was also working as a school teacher. It was also stated that in the SSLC book, the date of birth declaration was given by his father and he had also signed in English. THErefore, there was no possibility of their recording any wrong date. In fact the petitioner's mother had given a statement that such a wrong date was given for the purpose of facilitating his early entry into the school. Because of that the petitioner was able to complete his school education and they took advantage of such an alleged wrong entry. He cannot have a second benefit by altering the said date. It was also stated that the dates of birth of the children of the first wife were not furnished as well as their service records in Government service were also not produced. THErefore, the Government refused to accede to the request of the petitioner.