Allowed

M.Azhagu Sundaram v. the Joint Director

Madras HC13 Feb 2019WP(MD)/2609/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, relying on convincing evidence of the correct date of birth, directed the Joint Director of School Examination to issue a fresh SSLC certificate with the corrected date within two weeks and quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; First respondent directed to issue a fresh SSLC Certificate with the correct date of birth within two weeks.

M.Azhagu Sundaram Vs the Joint Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.02.2019 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN WP(MD)No.2609 of 2019

M.Azhagu Sundaram

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Director,

¶8

Directorate of School Examination (SSLC), DPI Complex, College Road,

¶9

Nungampakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶10

2.The Headmaster,

¶11

St.Xavier Middle School, Xavierpuram,

¶12

Kalakad, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

3.The Headmaster,

¶14

Government Higher Secondary School,

¶15

Kalakad, Tirunelveli District.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent bearing No.A.Thi.Mu.No.3/3026/B-6(2)2018 dated 13.12.2018 and consequently direct the first respondent to effect necessary changes regarding the date of birth of petitioner's daughter A.Bharathi from 30.06.2002 to 30.06.2001 in her S.S.L.C certificate within a stipulated time.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Siva Ilayaraja

¶19

For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy,

¶20

Special Government Pleader

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner's daughter studied in the second respondent school. Her date of birth was wrongly entered in the SSLC certificate. It should be 30.06.2001. But, it reads as 30.06.2002. It appears that the mistake was committed by the second respondent. Therefore, the writ petitioner moved the first respondent seeking relief. But, the first respondent declined to accept the petitioner's request. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

¶23

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶24

3.The petitioner has placed convincing materials that his daughter was actually born on 30.06.2001. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to issue a fresh SSLC Certificate indicating https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the correct date of birth of the petitioner's daughter within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order impugned in this writ petition is quashed. This

¶25

¶26

writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶27

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

¶31

The Joint Director, Directorate of School Examination (SSLC), DPI Complex, College Road,

¶32

Nungampakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-47082[F] dated 14/02/2019 )

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.S.SIVA ILAYARAJA, Advocate ( SR-47330[F] dated 15/02/2019 )

¶35

WP(MD)No.2609 of 2019 13.02.2019

¶36

SKM KK/SAR-/19.03.2019/2P-4C

¶37

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

M.Azhagu Sundaram v. the Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Azhagu Sundaram v. the Joint Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanalakshmi, Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Pagan, S/O.Pambiyan, Vs the Project Direct Cum

Kumarvel, Vs Hindustan Petroleum

Epanechar Immanuvel @ Vs the State

R.Shanmugasundaram, Vs Deputy General Manager

P.Mahalingam, Vs the Sub Collector / Revenue