Allowed

G.Arunprasad, v. the Secretary

Madras HC1 Dec 2014WP/19103/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and the Higher Secondary Certificate. Relying on a previous decision, the Court held that Central provisions prevail over State rules. Directions were issued to the respondents to change the date from 01.5.1989 to 01.9.1989.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and the Higher Secondary Certificate.

G.Arunprasad, Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.12.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.19103 of 2013

¶6

G.Arunprasad .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary
Board of Higher Secondary Education
Department of Government Examination
Madras 6.
2. The Secretary
Board of Secondary Education
Department of Government Examination
Madras 6.
3. The District Educational Officer
Dr. Ambedkar Government Higher
Secondary School Building
Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore
Chennai 600 008.
4. The Joint Director
Directorate of School Education
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai 600 006.
5. The Correspondent
Karnataka Sangha Higher Secondary School
11, Habibullah Road
North T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. .. Respondents

¶7

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner to rectify the mistake and to correct the date of birth as 08.9.1989 in the 10th Standard School Certificate and 12th Standard School Certificate.

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

For Petitioner : Ms.V.Porkodi For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Addl.G.P. For Respondent-5 : Mr.U.Nagaraja Melanta

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to correct his date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and the Higher Secondary Certificate.

¶12

Heard Ms.V.Porkodi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.U.Nagaraja Melanta, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

¶13

It is the claim of the petitioner that he was actually born on 01.9.1989, but his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 01.5.1989 in the school records. He is actually working in a company now, after acquiring a Degree in Engineering. The petitioner's passport as well as driving license contain his date of birth as 01.9.1989. Therefore, the petitioner sought a correction in the educational certificates. Since the respondents refused to effect correction, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

¶14

The District Educational Officer has filed a counter affidavit contending that once the School Authorities record the date of birth of a ward, as per the statement made by the parent, it cannot be corrected. The third respondent also relies upon a decision of Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Shanmugam dated 17.11.1999 in W.P.No.18085 of 1999, wherein the learned Judge places reliance upon Rule 5 of the SSLC Scheme.

¶15

However, it appears that S.Manikumar,J, considered the effect of Rule 5 in W.P.(MD)No.9340 of 2009 in S.Rajesh Kumar v. The Secretary, Board of Higher Second Education. By order dated 18.9.2012, he allowed the writ petition, pointing out in paragraph 29 of his decision that Subsidiary Rule 5 cannot be relied upon. Paragraph 29 reads as follows:

¶16

"Subsidiary Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate scheme, relied on by the respondents to contend that the application for alteration in the date of birth will not be entertained after a pupil had completed his course or appeared for the S.S.L.C. public examination also is much earlier to the advent of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the rules framed thereunder. Needless to say that the

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

provisions of any Central Act, will prevail over the State Act or the rules or regulations, framed by the latter, on the same subject. When the statutory provisions stated supra, enable the competent authorities under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, to make correction or cancellation as the case may be, the contention of the respondents that no alteration is permissible in the school records, after the student leaves the secondary education cannot be countenanced."

¶19

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the
respondents are directed to correct the date of birth of the
petitioner 01.5.1989 as 01.9.1989. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kpl
To
1. The Secretary
Board of Higher Secondary Education
Department of Government Examination
Madras 6.
2. The Secretary
Board of Secondary Education
Department of Government Examination
Madras 6.
3. The District Educational Officer
Dr. Ambedkar Government Higher
Secondary School Building
Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore
Chennai 600 008.
4. The Joint Director
Directorate of School Education
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai 600 006.
1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No58726
W.P.No.19103 of 2013.
nm(co)pmk.20.12.2014<br>

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

G.Arunprasad, v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Arunprasad, v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Muthukrishnan, Vs Union of India

E.R.Shine, Vs The District Revenue Officer

Parasakthi Vs The Joint Commissioner

M.Manickam, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Irudaya Rani Vs the Area Officer

M.Aamira Fathima, Vs The Annamalai University