Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
N Baskaran vs M/O Home Affairs on 21 June, 2021
1 of 4g CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH Deted the day (Stay of June Two Thousand And Twenty One co, f PRESENT: | THE HON'BLE SHRI S.N. TERDAL, MEMBER() THE HON'BLE SHRI C.V. SANKAR, MEMBER/A) O.8. 31 0/00800/2020 N. Baskaran (Age: 57 years} Son of Neerathi Lingam, No.8, DCP Quarters-Block 1, EVR Saal, Kipauk, Chennai- HOO O10.
a ~ Applicant (By Advocate: M/s. V. Raghavachari} Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) 1 Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009:
2. The Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai- G00 O04:
3. Union of India Rep. by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi- 110 001.
. Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. V. Kathirvelu Mr. K. Rajendran (R3)) CAV On :30.04.2021 (Pronounced by Hon' ble Mr. nkar, Member(A}} The relief prayed for in this OA is as follows:-
"In view of the facts and reasons as stated supra in paragraphs Vand V, the applicant prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned order in G.O. (MS) 86 dated 10.02.2620 on the file of the frst respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for alteration of date of birth as sought for by him fram 26.04.1962 to that of 26.10.1963, after holding an inquiry as contemplated in the Rules and fo pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2, The brief facts of the case of the applicant are as follows:- | The applicant was directly recruited as Deputy superintendent of Police under the Tamil Nadu Pollee service and | joined service on 16.12.1991, There was a discrepancy In the entry of date of birth at the Ume of admission to the school mentioning the date of birth as 26. 4, 1962 instead of 26.10.1963.
The applicant considered i as a clerical mistake which was * Eka RN ARES.
Sought to be rectified and, accordingly, a Suit in 0.5. No. 370/98 on the fe of District Munsiff, Cuddalore was instituted. tt was decreed ex-parte in Als favour on 08.11.1995. On 02.12.1995, he applied through the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore to the Director General of Police of Madras for change of date of birth.
30.12.1995. A response was seen from the Director General's Office on 19.2.1996 Stating that the ex-parte decree can be reopened by moving an application in the same court explaining the circumstances under which appearance was not put in by the respondents. This ex-parte judgement and decree dated 08.11.1995 was taken up again by the Principal District Munsir Court in First Appeal No. 370/95 and vide its judament dated 2/2003 before the Additional District Judge, Cuddalore and an order was passed on 26.59.2003, in this case by the Additional District Judge Cuddalore wherein the Appeal Sult was dismissed Sof 75 of Police, Chennai requesting to knew the steps taken on his representation dated 2.12,1995 forwarded by the Superintendent of Police South Arcot, Vallalar District, Cuddalore on 30.12.1995 regarding the alteration of the date of birth. The Director General of Police In his Memorandum dated 26.3.2015 rejected the claim for alteration of date of birth citing that certain judgments against the applicant had already been delivered which were not brought to the notice by the applicant. The applicant filed O.A, 696/2015 to quash the orders of the Director 'General of Police and to consider his claim for alteration of date of birth. This | was disposed of vide this Tribunals' erder dated 21.08.2019 wherein the competent authority was directed to consider the applicant's Annexure-A/6 representation dated 45.7,2014 and pass a reasoned and speaking order as per the relevant rules and regulations and in accordance with law within _ @ period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of thet order. In compliance | with the above order, the competent authority, namely, Government of Tamil Nadu, examined the representation along with the connected records and issued order dated 10.02.2020 rejecting his request for alteration of date of birth against which the present O.A. has been Aled, SSE agcgeng oF
3. The first objection of the applicant relates to para~3 of the impugned order dated 10.2.2020 wherein the respondents have Stated as follows:-
"3. The Government have carefully examined the representation of the petitioner in the fight of the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 21.08.2019. As per Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 4016, (Previously rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State ad Subordinate Service Rules), an application to alter the date of his birth shall be made to the authority competent within five years of entry into service, Section 59(3) of the said Act provides that any application received after five years after entry into the service shall be summarily rejected. The petitioner, Thiru W. Baskaran, IPS., has not made application to the authority competent within five years of his entry Inte service."
respondents themselves, Decree in O.S. No. 370/95 was passed On OBAL1995 and he had immediately applied through the Superintendent of Police on 2.12.1995. This was also forwarded by the Superintendent to the Director General of Police on SMeeeeeEoS Gof 42 application within five years of his entry into service contrary to what had been stated in para-3 of the Government Order which is impugned in this application, From the details of the reconis, there is no doubt that the applicant had applied in the year 1995 and as already seen, this was alse responded to by the Ofrector General of Police's office vide its communication datec 19.2.1996. Therefore, we can conclude that the applicant had made an application for altering his date of birth within five years as stipulated under the relevant service rifles Specifically Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of | Service) Act, 2016 (Previously rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules).
a The respondents, however, state that the applicant' g representation cannot be considered aS representation submitted to the competent authority with connected records. They have mainly relied upon the various orders passed by different Courts in this rae, A detailed analysis of the various orders passed by the relevant Courts reveals the following:-
The first order In favour of the applicant was given in the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore on 08.11.1998 in OLS, No. 370/95 which was allowed ex-parte because the respondents did not appear before the Court. This was taken up on First Appeal, in First Appeal No. 370/95 before the same Principal District Munsif Court and final order was passed dismissing the tilaim of the applicant to make alteration in date of birth on 25.1,2002. While discussing the documents furnished by the applicant in this suit, the Principal District Munsif Court observed finally that the plaintvf Gn the sult) did mot file appropriate documents to show that his date of birth was 26.10.1963. The
-- Bpplicant in that Sult had Gled his 'Horoscope and also the details regarding date of applicant's parents' marriage having been certified by Temple authorities where their marriage took place, The Principal District Munsif Court in this sult observed that there are chances of preparing any type of Horoscope for the plaintit {the applicant in the present O.A) and the plaintiff's father was working in the Revenue Department of the state Government and, therefore, he had enough experience and education so as not fo give a wrong date of birth in the school at the Nme of admission to the school. It is also seen that in none of the proceedings before the Civil Court, the applicant had produced his Birth Certificate issued by the Competent Authority. The Sof PS order in this First Appeal was challenged before the Additional District Judge, Cuddalore jn Appeal Suit No. 2/2003 which was finally ordered on 26.09.2003 dismissing the Appeal, In this Appeal Suit, the 45° defendant, namely, the father of the applicant, stated that at the time of admission of the plaintiff {applicant in this OA) in school, if was mentioned @s 26.10.1963 and the admission was based on the documents ©, ¥ and 9 of the 5" defendant's documents. But for some reas son, the school management based on their assumptions had mentioned the date oF birth as 26.4.1962 and recorded the same in the school cerlilicates which was the mistake committed by the school management. In other wards, it was urded on behalf of the applicant and his father that they had given the correct details, but a mistake was committed by the school authorities, The Additional District Judge while dismissing the Appeal Suit observed that the plaintiff's father was not an berate and he retired from service as Tahsildar of the Revenue Department and that he would not have given his son's date of birth without _ knewing the fact and implications of his action. The judge came to the conclusion that the schoo! management had registered the date of birth as 26.4.1962 as given by the 5° defendant (father PSR eS ak of the applicant), The judge further went on to examine the fact of the applicant having passed 11° Standard Le. SSiC in 1OPP-
1978. If the date of birth of the applicant was to be considered @s 26.10.1963, then the applicant would have been in first standard at the age of just 2 years and 6 months. The Adeitional District Judge, therefore, concluded that the applicant would not fave been of his legal age qualified to be admitted in 1 standard. Similarly, he did not have a suitable age in March 1977-78 to write his SSLC (then 11° Standard) exams. The judge also observed that the applicant completed Ais education including Collegiate education with the same date of birth and has chosen to change the same only after entering into the State 'Police Service in the year 1991 and the Original Suit itself was filed in the year 1995 only. The applicant, thereafter, filed Second Appeal in C.M.P. No, 19594 of 2019 in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras which was also dismissed due to con siderable delay in fling of this petition,
5. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, the applicant cannot merely depend upon his claim based on his representation _-- datéd 2.12.1995 as that representation was based on the ex-
e SO ee cea Wer fs parte order he got in the Original Sult 370/95 which iteett took further course in the relevant courts and came to be dismissed on several occasions based on the documents furnished and the depositions of the witnesses. His Second Appes! before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in C.M.p. LOSo4 of 2029 was also dismissed, because of considera ble delay. There js force in the argument of the respondents that the certificate issued by the Executive Officer of the Temple relating to the date of marrisgs of the parent of the applicant cannot be taken as authentic documentary evidence since the applicant had obtained the same after. the applicant had completed all Als Schooling and Graduation. Further, the father of the applicant was working In the Revenue Department of the State Government with enough experience and education and, therefore, it is difficult to surmise _ that the date of birth of the applicant was wrongly entered in the school recards even though it was correctly informed by the applicant's parents.
6. The respondents have also cited several cases including W.P. No. 17792/2004 in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Order of Division of the High Court of Madras in its decision in KS.
istrotive Tribunal rep. by its Registrar and Ors (CDJ 2008 MHC #604)" while deciding the claim for alteration of date of birth relled on the Supreme Cours | decision in 'Union of India vs. Cc Ramaswamy and Ors (AIR 1997 SC 2055)" and the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in 'Dr. M. Arumugam Vs. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore ((2012) 3 Mi 594)" In all the cases cited, the courts have consistently turned down any attempt service which were not supported by the adequate documents. In many of the above cited Cases, the request itself was Submitted very fate and only a few years before the date of superannuation of the concerned persons.
7. Even though in this case, we have to agree with the applicant that the application was fled within five years of his appointment as per rules, the said application was based on a certain ex~parte Decree in the Civil Court which was consistently dismissed a every stage and reached finality. The applicant has cited the Judgment in W_A. No. 784/2019 order dated 09.10.2020 birth was allowed by the 42 of 13 Hon'ble High Court of Madras. However, 8 close reading of the said judgment reveals that the issues in the said Writ Appeal were of a different nature relating te the earlier appointments of the petitioner before Als joining the Police Service and the conclusion arrived at by a single judge of the Hon'ble High Court based on the decuments furnished including the birth certificates of the petitioner and his siblings and other such documents.
8. As we have seen in the present application, the impugned contentions were not accepted by the Civil Courts based on the documents furnished and in fact the Additonal District judge, Cuddalore observed that if the contentions of the applicant were to be accepted, he would not have been eligible to appear for the SSLC exams in the year 1977-78, thus putting into question his passing the. said examination and further education and employment. Therefore, the judgment in the W.A. will not come to the rescue of the applicant,
9. It is not clear as to why the Applicant could not produce his Birth Certificate issued by the Competent Authority in any of the Court proceedings including this application. However, to meet 2 Ss Nee :
e Bore the ends of justice, we wish to give the Applicant a fina! opportunity to furnish all the hMecessary documents at Ais disposal to the Respondents who shall refer the matter to be finally engulred Into by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration snd report given as per Section 58 (1) r/w sub section (2) of the Yamilnadu Government Servants (Conditions of service} Act 2016, The respondents are at liberty to take an appropriate decision based on such s report and to facilitate this consideration, the impugned order dated 10.2.20 is kept in _ abeyance till a decision is taken by the respondents, aeesseeenceh AoSSg gare se