C.BAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to correct the petitioner's date of birth as 14.09.1958 and his religion as Christian in his Service Register as well as in the SSLC and other records and to permit the petitioner to continue in service as P.G. Teacher till, he attains the age of superannuation and pay all other monetary benefits.

(2.) The petitioner states that he was born on 14.09.1958 and that his date of birth and religion was wrongly mentioned in the school records. As per the school records, the petitioner's date of birth is 24.03.1956. The petitioner was appointed as P.G.Teacher in the sixth respondent School on 18.06.1996. It is stated that the petitioner realised the mistake regarding his date of birth and religion and hence, made a representation to the sixth respondent on 26.09.1996 to rectify his date of birth in his service register. Thereafter, a legal notice was also sent by the petitioner to the respondents 2, 3 and 6 on 23.02.1998. Since the respondents did not act on the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.311 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchendur, which was later transferred to District Munsif Court. Sathankulam and renumbered as O.S.No.47 of 2001. The suit is for a declaration in respect of the petitioner's date of birth as well as the petitioner's religion. The suit was decreed, by judgment and decree, dated 29.01.2010. It was, thereafter, on the basis of the Civil Court decree, the petitioner sent further representation on 02.08.2010 to the sixth respondent to change the date of birth as well as the religion as per the Civil Court decree in O.S.No. 47 of 2001. Again, several representations were made by the petitioner. Though the sixth respondent sought for some clarifications to consider the petitioner's application for alteration of date of birth, there was no further progress, and hence, it is stated by the petitioner that he was constrained to file the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner conceded the legal position that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding alteration of date of birth as it fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal. Since the suit was filed in 1998, when the State Administrative Tribunal was functioning under the Administrative Tribunal Act , the Civil Court's decree is without jurisdiction and hence invalid. The Honourable Supreme Court has ruled that a suit for correction of date of birth in the service register is a matter concerning members of Service and in view of Section 28 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit.