Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 10.04.2014 Coram: The Hon'ble Ms.Justice K.B.K.VASUKI W.P.Nos.10312 and 10313 of 2007 M.Subramanian .Petitioner in both the petitions versus 1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 05.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal.
3.The Tashildar, Rasipuram, Namakkal District..Respondents in both the petitions W.P.No.10312 of 2007: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent order in proceedings Na.Ka.No.1355/07/A1, dated 27.02.2007 and quash the same as illegal and direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner as Village Administrative Officer by altering the date of birth of the petitioner from 1.3.1949 to 9.2.1951 with continuity of service.
W.P.No.10313 of 2007: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent order in proceedings Na.Ka.No.1355/07/A1, dated 28.02.2007 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner ..Mr.K.Shahul Hameed (in both the writ petitions) For Respondents ..Mr.R.M.Muthukumar Government Advocate (in both the writ petitions) COMMON ORDER
The relief sought for in these writ petitions is to quash the impugned ordeRs.in and under which, the petitioner's representation dated 15.10.2005 to correct his Date of Birth as 9.2.1951 instead of 1.3.1949 with continuity of service was rejected and the petitioner was permitted to retire from service.
2.The petitioner was appointed as Village Administrative Officer on 24.10.2000.
He was regularised in service as Village Administrative Officer on 1.6.2006.
Much before his regularisation, the petitioner made a representation on 15.10.2005 for change of his date of birth on the ground that his actual date of birth is 9.2.1951 and the same is erroneously entered into as 1.3.1949.
The petitioner enclosed a copy of his birth certificate dated 15.3.1976 without his name, issued by the Tahsildar, Namakkal and a decree in O.S.No.140 of 1976 issued by the District Munsif, Namakkal in support of his contention that his date of birth is 9.2.1951.
On receipt of the same, the matter was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal for enquiry, who in turn, directed the same to the Tahsildar, Rasipuram to hold appropriate enquiry by obtaining birth certificates relating to his brothers and sisters and send a report.
Accordingly, enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar, Rasipuram, in the couRs.of which, the birth certificates purported to be his elder brothers and sisters and the petitioner numbering six are produced before the Tahsildar, Rasipuram.
He also made enquiry with the mother of the petitioner and elder persons, who were residing in the same village.
Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Rasipuram prepared a fact finding report dated 7.2.2007 on the basis of the documents and the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Namakkal dated 15.3.1976 and forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal.
3.In the meanwhile, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.6216 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 for directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 15.10.2005 for alteration of his date of birth and this Court passed the order on 21.02.2007 directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a specified time therein.
Thereafter, the impugned order dated 27.2.2007 came to be passed, stating that the petitioner failed to prove his claim by producing sufficient satisfactory evidence.
In pursuance of the same, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on 28.2.2007, which is the date of his superannuation, on the basis of the date of birth entered in his service records.
Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions for the reliefs as stated supra.
4.Heard the rival submissions made on either side.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention that the date of birth of the petitioner is not 1.3.1949 as entered in the service records, but 9.2.1951 would rely on the date of birth certificates relating to the family members of the petitioner, the date of birth certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Namakkal dated 15.3.1976 and the decree made in O.S.No.140 of 1976 dated 14.4.1976 relating to the date of birth of the petitioner and the report of the Tahsildar, Rasipuram dated 7.2.2007.
As per the documents referred to above, the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal passed the impugned order on 27.2.2007 stating that the petitioner has not produced any relevant materials to substantiate his claim and the petitioner failed to produce strong and genuine documents.
The second respondent also questioned the truthfulness of the birth certificate of the petitioner in which, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned.
6.It is true that the Tahsildar, Rasipuram along with his letter dated 7.2.2007, forwarded the date of birth certificates of the elder brothers and sisters of the petitioners herein and the last certificate is reported to be related to one Duraisamy @ Subramanian, whose date of birth is 9.2.1951.
It is also stated therein that the name mentioned in sixth column i.e.Duraisamy @ Subramanian is the date of birth certificate of the petitioner by name M.Subramanian.
7.The Tahsildar, Namakkal, in his certificate dated 15.3.1976 stated that Duraisamy @ M.Subramanian and the petitioner M.Subramanian are one and the same persons.
Whereas the reading of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Namakkal dated 15.3.1976 shows it is not based on any records and not any due enquiry.
Further, the decree issued in O.S.No.14 of 1976 and six date of birth certificates of the elder brothers and sisters and the petitioner are not based on any statement of elderly resident of the village, who are either connected with the case or well acquainted with the family of the petitioner.
The fact that a birth certificate available in respect of the male child born on 9.2.1951 was not proved as the petitioner herein by name M.Subramanian and no statement was obtained from the elderly resident of the village or elder brothers and sisters of the petitioner in this regard either by the Tahsildar, Namakkal or by the Tahsildar, Rasipuram.
In the absence of one such statement for proving the date of birth certificate dated 9.2.1951 is relating to the petitioner M.Subramanian, the question of accepting that the date of birth of the petitioner as 9.2.1951 does not arise herein.
8.Though, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal has not passed any detailed order, he referred to the earlier reports and passed the impugned order based on the same,.
Hence, this Court finds no error or infirmity in the order so passed by the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, rejecting the petitioner's representation regarding alteration of his date of birth, as such, the petitioner is dis-entitled to get any relief in W.P.No.10312 of 2007.
9.As far as W.P.No.10313 of 2007 is concerned, the department has rightly permitted the petitioner to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of his date of birth entered in the service records and the same do not warrant any interference by this Court.
10.In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
No cost.
10.04.2014 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No cla To 1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 05.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officaer, Namakkal.
3.The Tashildar, Rasipuram, Namakkal District.
K.B.K.VASUKI,J.
cla W.P.Nos.10312 and 10313 of 2007 10.04.2014