Madras High Court
M.Muthusamy vs The Agricultural Production ... on 14 August, 2012
Author: Vinod K Sharma
Bench: Vinod K Sharma
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14/08/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE VINOD K SHARMA Writ Petition (MD) No.11005 of 2012 M.Muthusamy S/o.G.Muthusamy 10/4 I Floor,Ponni Nagar, Bye Pass Road, Madurai ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agriculture Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 2.The Chief Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department Nandanam, Chennai. 3.The Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department No.60 TPK road, Madurai. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in letter No.Ma.Pa.2/28003/2012 dated 24.07.2012 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and also directing the first and second respondents to alter the petitioner's date of birth in petitioner's service register as per the petitioner's representations dated 02.06.1986 and is follow up letters dated 31.10.1989, 15.03.1994 and 12.12.2011. !For petitioner ... Mr.V.Nagendran ^For Respondents ... No appearance :ORDER
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed vide letter No. Ma. Pa.2/28003/2012 dated 24.07.2012 with the consequential relief of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to alter the petitioner's date of birth in service register in pursuant to the representations dated 02.06.1986 followed by letters dated 31.10.1989, 15.03.1994 and 12.12.2011.
2. The petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agricultural Engineering), Command Area Development Programme Unit II, Vaigai Project, Madurai. The petitioner originally joined as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer on 29.07.1981 under Rule 10(a)(i) as temporary appointee.
3. The petitioner claims that in educational record the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 15.08.1956, which was duly recorded in the service register of the petitioner. It is submitted that subsequently the petitioner obtained the birth extract from his village and came to know that he was born on 28.11.1957, which was got registered on 05.12.1957 in the office of the Registrar of birth and death.
4. The petitioner accordingly made a request on 02.06.1986 for necessary change of birth entry. However, his request was not accepted as the petitioner was only a temporary employee appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
5. The services of the petitioner was regularised on 01.02.1989 with retrospective effect. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 31.10.1989 to alter the date of birth. The request of the petitioner was again rejected by the second respondent vide letter No.82768/1994 dated 13.11.1995, for the reason that the application was not presented within five years of joining service. The petitioner did not challenge this order and allowed it to attain finality.
6. It is the case of the petitioner, that after rejection of the request, he traced his original application for change of date of birth and file another application for change of date of birth. The request was again rejected on 24.01.2012. The petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.6114 of 2012 in this Court directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2012.
7. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 27.04.2012 on the ground that the petitioner could not move another representation for the very same relief before the second respondent, which stood already rejected. The submission of the petitioner is that in spite of the dismissal of the writ, the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner refused to argue the matter, though writ petition deserved to be dismissed on the ground itself, however the writ petition is considered on merit.
9. The stand of the petitioner is that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as it proceeds on the presumption that application was made after five years of joining, which fact is wrong, as the first application by the petitioner was filed before expiry of five years. This ground is not available to the petitioner, as earlier application for change of date of birth was rejected on 13.11.1995. The said order has attained finality. Subsequently, the request of the petitioner to consider his representation was rejected by this Court on 27.04.2012. The respondents, therefore, had no right to consider the subsequent representation filed by the petitioner on 27.02.2012, after many years of joining service. It is well settled law that repeated representations do not give a survival of cause of action. The representations are merely a mode of drawing attention of the authorities for appropriate action. If any order is passed rejecting those representations, the order cannot be taken as constituting a fresh cause of action for filing a writ petition.
10. Admittedly, request of petitioner for change of date of birth was rejected on 13.11.1995, therefore, repeated representations without challenging the order did not give any cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the subsequent order passed by authorities in ignorance of the fact that the claim stood already rejected many years earlier to filing of representation. It was not open to respondents to take note of any representation after passing of order on 13.11.1995, specially when this Court had dismissed the writ filed by the petitioner.
11. The writ petition, being totally misconceived, is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.
RR To
1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agriculture Department, Fort St. George, Chennai
2.The Chief Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department Nandanam, Chennai.
3.The Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department No.60 TPK road, Madurai.