N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J.
1. Heard Mr.S.Namasivayam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No. 26187 of 2010, dated 14.3.2012, wherein the appellant''s prayer to quash the order dated 27.9.2010 and also for a direction to alter the appellant''s date of birth in his service register as 12.4.1953, was rejected by the learned Single Judge.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge were that as per the appellant''s S.S.L.C. Certificate, his date of birth is recorded as 13.4.1952 and he was appointed on 15.10.1984 as Assistant Professor (Agronomy) at Kumaraperumal Farm Science Centre, Tiruchirappalli and he had submitted an application to correct his date of birth on 29.9.1989 stating that his actual date of birth was 12.4.1953 and the date of birth entered in the S.S.L.C. Book and Service Register as 13.4.1952 is wrong. The said application submitted was returned for certain clarifications and the same was represented on 20.11.1991. Again, it was returned on 20.2.1992 for further clarification. Thereafter, the appellant sent a remainder with certain documents only on 23.8.2006 with further representations on 30.12.2009 followed with reminder on 31.5.2010. The said representation dated 31.5.2010 was rejected by stating that there is no provision for correcting the date of birth at the belated stage.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the application seeking alteration of date of birth having been filed within a period of five years in terms of Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the reason assigned in the impugned order for rejecting his request seeking correction of date of birth, which was challenged before the learned Single Judge, was not correct. The learned counsel also challenged the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph-20 of the order giving suggestion to the State Government to amend Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules by deleting the same with further suggestion to the Union of India to suitably amend the concerned service rules, which enables the Government Servants to change the date of birth after entering into service. The learned counsel therefore submits that the said suggestion made by the learned Single Judge is unwarranted, as the learned Single Judge has gone beyond the scope of the prayer made in the writ petition. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has produced certain registered document to show that his date of birth was wrongly entered in the S.S.L.C. Book and in the Service Register.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in the S.S.L.C. Book of the appellant, his date of birth is recorded as 13.4.1952 and the said entry remains as such even as on date and the appellant has also retired from service on 31.5.2012 and unless the entry made in the S.S.L.C. certificate regarding the date of birth is corrected suitably and application is given within five years, no question of correcting the entry made in the service register will arise. Even on facts in the certificate, which was relied on by the appellant, the name of the appellant''s mother differs, hence those documents are not conclusive proof of the appellant''s date of birth. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is a well accepted proposition of law that correction of date of birth in the service register can be made only if unimpeachable evidence is available. The appellant has not produced any such proof.
6. Hence, the observation/suggestion made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph-20 of the order is not necessary. Therefore, the said portion of the order is set aside. The writ appeal is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
