Madras High Court
Seyona Mathew vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 22 February, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 445
Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
W.P.No.988 of 2019
and W.M.P.No.1103 of 2019
Seyona Mathew .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
of Tamil Nadu,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
St. George Fort,
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to the Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat, St. George Fort,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 009.
3. The Director of Medical Education/
Chairman, Board of Nursing,
No.162, EVR Salai,
Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
4. The Tamil Nadu Nursing and Midwife Council
rep. by its President,
Jayaprakash Narayanan Maligai,
Old No.140, New No.56,
Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
5. Sri Ramachandra College of Nursing,
Sri Ramachandra University,
Porur, Chennai-600 116.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
6. The Registrar,
Sri Ramachandra University,
Porur, Chennai-600 116. .. Respondents
***
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents 1 to 3 herein to take necessary action on the petitioners
representation dated 07.08.2018 by the fifth and sixth respondents
herein to make necessary amendment in the petitioner's date of birth
as 21.11.1991 as per the Birth Certificate of the petitioner dated
20.06.2013 issued by the Government of Kerala and as per the
proceedings of the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations,
Kerala in Proceedings No.k.Dis/Ex/B4/67909/2014/CGE, dated
16.10.2014 in the petitioner's mark statement and transfer certificate
and other records issued by the fourth and fifth respondents herein
and to reissue the petitioner's mark statement and transfer certificate
and all other related documents to the petitioner herein by
incorporating the petitioner's date of birth as 22.11.1991.
***
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kalaivanan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Ianabathan,
Additional Government Pleader
for RR 1 and 2
Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, GP
for RR 3 and 4
Mr.Abishek Jenasenan
for RR 5 & 6
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
ORDER
The petitioner, who had completed her B.Sc., (Nursing) Course from the fifth respondent college affiliated to the sixth respondent University during the academic years 2010-2014, is now seeking to amend her date of birth in her Mark Statements, Transfer Certificate and other records issued by the fifth and sixth respondents by incorporating the same as 21.11.1991 as per the Birth Certificate dated 20.06.2013, instead of 21.11.1992.
2. The petitioner is from the State of Kerala and completed her schooling in the same State. According to her, her grandparents had inadvertently given her date of birth as 21.11.1992 at the time of admission in the school and the said date registered originally has been carried out throughout her schooling and reflected in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSCL) also. It is stated that only when she applied for birth certificate to get the passport, she found that her actual date of birth is 21.11.1991 and it has been wrongly mentioned as 21.11.1992 and she had given a representation to the sixth respondent on 25.06.2013 to return the original 10th Standard Mark Statement for making corrections and effecting the actual date of birth as 21.11.1991. The petitioner also completed her Nursing course in the fifth respondent College on 19.07.2014, however, the Mark http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Statement and the Transfer Certificate issued by the fifth and sixth respondents carried the date of birth of 22.11.1992 only. The petitioner, therefore, applied to the School Education Department, Government of Kerala, to correct her date of birth as 21.11.1991 in all her school records and school certificates. It is stated that after thorough verification of her application and the records relating to her date of birth from the government records, the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram, State of Kerala, in and by the proceedings dated 16.10.2014, in Order No.K.Dis/Ex/B4/67909/201/CGE, passed an order to correct her date of birth from 21.11.1992 to 21.11.1991. On the strength of the above order of the Joint Commissioner, the petitioner got her Certificate for SSLC course re-issued by effecting the change in the date of birth. It appears that the petitioner also had got passport, Aadhar Card, Driving License and PAN Card effecting the date of birth as 21.11.1991.
3. Subsequently, enclosing the copy of the order of the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram, Government of Kerala, along with certain other documents, the petitioner made representations to the sixth respondent to change her date of birth in all those documents that were issued to her by them. Now seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take action on the said representation, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
4. This writ petition is resisted by the respondents 5 and 6 by filing a counter-affidavit, in which, it is stated that even the prospectus issued by the sixth respondent Deemed University at the time of admission to the student clearly contained a condition that the name and date of birth of the candidate will be registered as per the Higher Secondary Certificate Mark Statement/Transfer Certificate and request to change the same will not be considered at a later stage. It is also further contended that the sixth respondent, being the Deemed University, students from various States, including the State of Kerala, take up their studies in their institutions and every year at least 10 students from the State of Kerala join the B.Sc. Nursing Course and as per their records the representations for change of date of birth are received only from B.Sc. Nursing students. It is also stated that curiously, the date of birth is also sought to be changed one year prior to the date of birth that had been recorded in the Birth Register at the time of registration of birth. It is contended that the University Rules do not permit such change of date of birth.
5. Heard both sides.
6. It is a strange case, where, the petitioner, who had completed the professional course of Nursing, is seeking for the change of date of http://www.judis.nic.in 6 birth from 21.11.1992 to 21.11.1991, for the reasons best known to her. It becomes relevant to advert to the documents produced by the petitioner for the claim of change of date of birth. In the Secondary School Leave Certificate issued under the authority of the Government of Kerala at Kottayam in the year 2008, the date of birth of the petitioner is registered as 21.11.1992 and the names of the parents are shown as “V.M.Mathai” and “Sukumol”. The petitioner had studied in “Our Lady of Lourde's Higher Secondary School, Uzhavoor P.O., Kottayam”. In the Birth Certificate produced by the petitioner, which was issued by the Kuravilangad Grama Panchayat, Department of Panchayats, Government of Kerala, on 20.06.2013, the date of birth is registered as 21.11.1991 and the names of the parents are registered as “Mathew V.M.” and “Sumol Mathew”. Immediately, after obtaining the same, the petitioner seems to have given a representation to the sixth respondent University for change of date of birth. The petitioner seems to have completed her degree course in the year 2014 and also awarded the degree by the sixth respondent University. In her consolidated statement of marks and the Transcript Certificate issued by the sixth respondent also, her date of birth has been registered as 21.11.1992.
7. To substantiate her claim that her date of birth is only in the year 1991, the petitioner had also produced the documents, in which, http://www.judis.nic.in 7 changes have been effected. One such document is the passport of the petitioner, a perusal of which goes to show that the same is valid from 15.10.2014 to 14.10.2024. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the petitioner had applied for the same if not on 15.10.2014, at least a few says prior to that. Even according to the petitioner, the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations, referred to above, was issued only on 16.10.2014. Therefore, the petitioner could not have furnished her original date of birth documents before the passport authorities, which should have carried the date of birth only as 21.11.1992. This leads to suspicion that the petitioner could not have furnished the correct birth certificate before the authorities. The original Secondary School Leaving Certificate, which was produced at the time of admission showing her date of birth as 21.11.1992 was subsequently corrected as 21.11.1991 by referring to the order of the Joint Commissioner dated 16.10.2014, which is also produced before this Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was also awarded the degree of Bachelor of Science in Nursing on 29.11.2014, which is after the corrections obtained from the Joint Commissioner. The PAN Card, which is claimed to be issued in the year 2014, and the Driving License, which was issued in the year 2016 are carrying only the date of birth as 21.11.1991.
8. Learned counsel for the private respondents invited the http://www.judis.nic.in 8 attention of this Court to the Prospectus issued by the sixth respondent Deemed University, Clause 14 of which clearly contained a condition with respect to the change of name/date of birth and the same reads as follows :
“14. Change of name/Date of Birth :
The name and date of birth of the candidate will be registered in the records of the University as given in the HSC Mark Statement/Transfer Certificate. No request will be considered later in regard to change of date of birth or correction in the name of the candidate. The parents and candidate are requested to verify and confirm these entries in the HSC Mark Statement/ Transfer Certificate at the time of receipt of the same.”
9. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the sixth respondent that even along with the representation made to the University, the petitioner had not produced the copy of the proceedings issued by the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram, Government of Kerala, and that she had only submitted a copy of the revised extract/birth certificate from the original records of Birth Register maintained by the Kuravilangad Grama Panchayat, Kottayam District. Yet another discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the private respondents is that in the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, the name of the father of the petitioner is shown as “Mathew V.M.” and the name of the mother is shown as “Sumol Mathew”. Even as per the http://www.judis.nic.in 9 revised birth certificate issued by the Secretary, Kuravilangad Grama Panchayat, dated 20.06.2013, the names of the parents of the petitioner were stated so. While so, at the time of filling of the basic information in the application form while joining the University, the name of her father was written as “V.M.Mathai” and mother's name was shown as “Sukumol Mathew”. It is stated by the learned counsel for the University that repeatedly the petitioner had been filling various forms under various headings such as family details, medical data sheet, declaration etc., wherein, the name of her father is shown as “V.M.Mathai”. It is also stated that the father of the petitioner had signed on 22.07.2010 in the application form under a few headings, such as College Disciplinary Rules, Declaration by student and parent, Undertaking to Hosteler, etc., as “Mathai”, which is totally different from that one entered in the revised birth certificate. Hence, learned counsel for the private respondents contended that these facts give rise to suspicion about the genuineness of the revised birth certificate produced by the petitioner, which is said to have been issued by the Secretary of the Kuravilangad Grama Panchayat on 20.06.2013.
10. When the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner is only dated 16.10.2014, it is not known as to how the petitioner was able to bring on record the revised change of date of birth as 21.11.1991 in the passport issued on 15.10.2014. The petitioner also has not http://www.judis.nic.in 10 produced the original birth certificate with the entry of date of birth 21.11.1992. It is also specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the private respondents that all the applications submitted by the petitioner at the time of admission into the fifth respondent college are self-filled in applications, where also, the petitioner has specifically written in her own hand that she was born on 21.11.1992. The proceedings of the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations itself is based on the birth certificate issued by the Department of Panchayats on 20.06.2013. Even the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner only speaks about the evidence produced to prove the claim of the petitioner, which has reference only to the birth certificate issued by the Kuravilangad Grama Panchayat and also reference to G.O.(Rt)No.2281/2011/G.Den, dated 18.06.2011.
11. The petitioner also has not given adequate explanation for not taking action from the date of admission to school till she completed the graduation, except stating that she came to know only when she was about to apply for passport. Though logically if the date of birth remains as in the year 1992, the petitioner would gain an year of service, if she opts to go for Government service, whereas, by amending the date of birth into 21.11.1991 she stands to lose an year of service, depending upon the place of employment and also the age of retirement.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11
12. It is also pointed in the counter-affidavit of the private respondents that only the B.Sc. (Nursing) students, who joined the respondent University, ask for the change in the date of birth, which would be an year prior to the one already recorded and that the University is not able to crack the mystery behind that.
13. Be that as it may, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, as there is no proper explanation given by the petitioner for getting the same amended at this point of time without any reason.
14. Clause 14 of the prospectus with reference to the correction in the date of birth or the name also does not permit the University to change the same at a later point of time, when the option of verifying the same was open to the petitioner as well as her parents at the time of admission. The documents furnished by the petitioner also showing the name of the parents of the petitioner differently in different documents and there is no convincing reason coming forth from the petitioner for the same.
15. In the light of the above discussion, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and http://www.judis.nic.in 12 the same is dismissed as devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.02.2019 Speaking / Non-speaking Order Internet : Yes gg To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 009.
3. The Director of Medical Education/ Chairman, Board of Nursing, No.162, EVR Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
4. The President, Tamil Nadu Nursing and Midwife Council Jayaprakash Narayanan Maligai, Old No.140, New No.56, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
http://www.judis.nic.in 13 PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
gg W.P.No.988 of 2019 22.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in