Prakash G Vs The Director of School Education

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Impugned Communication letter in A.Thi.Mu.No. 206032, 206033/B5(5)/2025 dated 25.04.2025 passed by the first respondent and quash

¶14

1/12

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P(MD)No.17284 of 2025

¶17

the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently directing the respondents to alter the petitioner's date of birth entered in the secondary school leaving certificate dated 25.05.2016 and higher secondary course certificate dated 16.05.2018, as 08.06.2000 instead of 26.06.2000 in consonance with the birth certificate by considering the earlier representation dated 17.04.2025 in accordance with law and within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balaji

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned

¶22

communication letter, dated 25.04.2025 passed by the first respondent and consequently directing the respondents to alter the petitioner's date of birth entered in the secondary school leaving certificate dated 25.05.2016 and higher secondary course certificate dated 16.05.2018, as 08.06.2000 instead of 26.06.2000 in consonance with the birth certificate by considering the petitioner's representation dated 17.04.2025,

¶23

The petitioner is aged about 25 years is working as Junior Assistant in the Office of the Thiruchuli Union, Reddiapaati, Rural Development and

¶24

2/12

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P(MD)No.17284 of 2025

¶27

Panchayat Raj Department, Virudhunagar District. The petitioner has approached the respondents 1 and 2 to alter his date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and Higher Secondary Certificate, dated 25.05.2016 16.05.2018 respectively from 26.06.2000 to 08.06.2000 as in the birth certificate of the petitioner.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have imposed onerous conditions which are incapable of complying with, as many of the documents that sought by the respondents are not be available with the School.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while dealing with the identical situation, this Court has intervened and has passed an order in WP(MD)No.16333 of 2024 on 28.11.2024 in the case of S.Venkatesan Vs The Director of School Education and others , following the order passed in W.P.No.23716 of 2014 on 03.03.2015.

¶30

The learned Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that the details called for from the petitioner vide impugned communication, dated 25.04.2025 is pursuant to the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of

¶31

3/12

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P(MD)No.17284 of 2025

¶34

School Education Department, dated 18.03.2022 bearing %.K.vz;.029664/vk;/,

¶35

3/2021. It is submitted that the details called for strictly in accordance with the guidelines and therefore, the respondents as officers of the Government bound by the same. Therefore, the petitioner has been called upon to furnish the details as called for.

¶36

It is noticed that the petitioner has been called upon to furnish the following details:

¶37

mry; kjpg;ngz; rhd;wpjo; kw;Wk; mjd; efy; (mark Statement) (if laminated must be removed)

¶38

2.1-Mk; tFg;G Kjy; gapd;w gjpTj;jhs; mry; kw;Wk; mjd; efy; (Record Sheet)

¶39

3.10-Mk; tFg;G gs;sp khw;Wr; rhd;wpopd; efy; (jiyik Mrphpah; / Mrhpia rhd;nwhg;gkplg;gl;lJ)

¶40

4.gs;spr; Nrh;f;if tpz;zg;gk; (Admission Form) efy;

¶41

5.v];.v];.vy;.rp cWjp nkhop rhd;W efy; (S.S.L.C. Declaration

¶42

Form)

¶43

6.gpwg;Gr; rhd;wpjo; mry; kw;Wk; mjd; efy; (Birth Certificate)

¶44

7.gs;sp Nrh;f;if / ePf;fy; gjpNtl;by; khzthpd; ngah; cs;s gf;fj;jpd; efy;

¶45

4/12

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P(MD)No.17284 of 2025

¶48

8.kDjhuhpd; ngah;/je;ij ngah;/jhahh; ngah;/Kfg;ngOj;J/ gpwe;jNjjp Mfpait gjpT nra;Ak; nghOJ jtW Vw;gl;ljw;fhd jiyikahrphpahpd; tpsf;ff;fbjk; kw;Wk; fy;tpr; rhd;wpjo; (Bonafide Certificate - jkpo; kw;Wk; Mq;fpyj;jpy;).

¶49

9.ePjpkd;w jPh;g;ghiz ngw;wpUg;gpd; mry; kw;Wk; mjd; efy;.

¶50

10.muR kw;Wk; muR rhh;e;j epWtdq;fspy; gzpGhpgtnudpy; mJ rhh;e;j tptuk;. (No.1 to 8 called for)

¶51

Some of the documents stipulated pursuant to the aforesaid guidelines, dated 18.03.2022 are incapable of being produced by the petitioner. The bona fide of the petitioner is not in doubt. The petitioner has completed graduation based on the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the respondents. There is a variation in the date of birth in the birth certificate issued under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, wherein, the date of birth is given as 08.06.2000 and in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and Higher Secondary Certificate is 26.06.2000. Unless there is a bona fide doubt that the petitioner is not the person for whom the birth certificate was issued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, the onerous condition imposed above

¶52

5/12

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P(MD)No.17284 of 2025

¶55

cannot be imposed to the petitioner. Some of the certificates are incapable of being produced as admissions to the School particularly the Government School are not necessary followed with any letter of admission. In any event, these records may not be available and may not have been preserved by the petitioner. While dealing with the identical situation, the Principal Bench of this Court in W.P.23716 of 2014 dated 03.03.2015 reads as under:

¶56

"5.The very same issue came up for consideration before this Curt in W.P.(MD) No.9340 of 2009 dated 18.09.2012. An identical prayer was made to rectify the date of birth in the petitioner's service records. The respondent Government took a stand that in view of Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Secondary School Certificate Rules, the request for correction of date of birth cannot be considered after the pupil have left the school. This Court after elaborately considered the Government Orders and taking note of other decisions on the point, allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondent to consider the birth extracts and other records of the petitioner while considering his representation and making necessary changes in the date of birth as in the Secondary grade School Leaving Certificate and Higher Secondary grade School Leaving Certificate and other certificates. The petitioner therein was given liberty to make representation to the respondents along with the copy of the order. At this stage it would be beneficial to refer to the operative portion of the order.

¶57

27.The Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000 have come into force with effect from 01.01.2000. Rule 11, deals with the correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths under Section 15 and that the same is extracted hereunder:

¶58

"11.Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths under Section 15:(1)If it is reported to the Registrar that a clerical or formal error has been made in the register or if such error is otherwise noticed by him and if the

¶59

6/12

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.P(MD)No.17284 of 2025

¶62

register is in his possession, the Registrar shall enquire into the matter and if he is satisfied that any such error has been made, he shall correct the error (by correcting or cancelign the entry) as provided in section 15 and shall in the case of local authorities specified in column (1) of the Table below, send an extract of the entry showing the error and how it has been corrected to the officer specified in column (2) thereof.

¶63

Local Authorities(1) Officers(2) Village Panchayat Village Panchayat President Town Panchayat Executive Officer Cantonment Executive Officer Municipality Commissioner Corporation Commissioner Neyveli Lignite Corporation Chief Health Officer (2)In the case referred to in sub-rule(1), if the register is not in his possession, the Registrar shall make a report to the officer specified in the Table in sub-rule (1) and call for the relevant register and after enquiring into the matter, if he is satisfied that such error has been made make necessary correction.

¶64

(3)Any such correction as mentioned in sub-rule(2) shall be countersigned by the officer specified in the Table in subrule (1) in this behalf when the register is received from the Registrar.

¶65

(4)If any person asserts that any entry in the register of births and deaths is erroneous in substance, the Registrar may correct the entry in the manner prescribed under Section1 15 upon production by that person a declaration setting forth the nature of the error and true facts of the case made by two credible persons having knowledge of the facts of the case. (5)Notwithstanding anything contained in subrules (1) and (4), the Registrar shall make a report of any correction of the kind referred to therein giving necessary details to the officer specified in the Table in sub-rule(1) (6)If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry in the register of births and deaths has been fraudulently or improperly made, he shall make a report giving necessary details to the officer authorised by the Chief Registrar by general or special order in this behalf under Section 25 and on hearing from him take

¶66

7/12

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

W.P(MD)No.17284 of 2025

¶69

necessary action in the matter. (7)In every case in which an entry is corrected or cancelled under this rule, intimation thereof should be sent to the permanent address of the person who has given information under section 8 or section 9".

¶70

28.Reading of the statutory provisions makes it clear that the Act provides for correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths. The decision relied on by the respondents in their counter affidavit rendered in W.P.No.4244 of 1965, dated 26.10.1965 and reported in 1966 MLJ 80, is prior to the introduction of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the rules framed thereunder.

¶71

29.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 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.

¶72

30.As stated supra, as per the birth certificate issued by the Sub Registrar, Thiruvattar enclosed in the typed set of papers, the name of the child entered in the said certificate is S.Rajesh Kumar. The date of birth has been shown as 19.01.1975. When the statute provides for correction or cancellation of an entry in the register of births and deaths maintained by the Sub Registrar after coming into force of the Act, the said certificate can be relied on for making necessary changes in public records which includes the records maintained in the office of the Director of Government Examinations Chennai. The contention of the respondents that the

¶73

8/12

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

W.P(MD)No.17284 of 2025

¶76

said correction can be made only before the student leaves the school and not later, cannot be accepted for the reason that any entry in the birth certificate by virtue of registration or alteration or cancellation by the competent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, has to be given effect to otherwise, the purpose for registration or alteration or modification would be defeated. There cannot be different entries in the public records maintained by different authorities, one under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the other by the educational authorities. The date of birth as entered in the birth extract has to be entered in all the public records uniformly, unless and until any statutory rules, restrict such entry, like in the case of a Government servant, governed by the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to accept the objections of the educational authorities made on the basis of the Subsidiary rules framed before the introduction of the Central Act, 1969.

¶77

31.In the light of the decision made in W.P.No.9800 of 2009, dated 21.10.2009 in R.Deepak Vs.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board, Chennai and two others, the certificate issued by the competent authority under Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and other supporting documents relied on by the present writ petitioner has to be considered.

¶78

32.For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the birth extract and other evidence produced by the petitioner while considering his representation, dated 03.09.2009 and make necessary changes, in the date of birth as 19.01.1975 in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate and the Higher Secondary Course and other certificates. The petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the respondents along with a copy of this order and that he shall produce the original certificates for making necessary corrections. No costs.

¶79

9/12

¶80

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶81

W.P(MD)No.17284 of 2025

¶82

The above decision of the Principal Bench of this Court was recently followed by this Court in the case of S.Venkatesan stated supra

¶83

Considering the same, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to change the date of birth from 26.06.2000 to 08.06.2000 in the SSLC Certificate and HSC Certificate within a period of 6 weeks from the date

¶84

of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶85

26.06.2025

¶86

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn

¶87

To

¶88