The Madras High Court Bench here has expressed surprise over an Additional District Court having ordered change of date of birth in a government schoolteacher’s service register without considering the fact that such a change would lead to an improbable presumption that the teacher would have passed his Class X examinations at the age of 12.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by the teacher seeking a direction to the Director of School Education to comply with the lower court order, Justice S. Vaidyanathan said: “It would be conjectural to presume that the petitioner’s parents might have admitted him in school at an early age either because he was a mischievous but shrewd child or because he was extremely studious.”
He went on to state: “If this petition is allowed, then there is every possibility of similarly placed persons approaching this court seeking the same relief by obtaining a judgment and decree in one way or the other… Though it is a fit case to impose costs, this court refrains from such imposition since the petitioner happens to be one belonging to a noble profession.”
The judge pointed out that the petitioner had joined government service as a Secondary Grade teacher in 1989. Then, his date of birth was recorded as October 26, 1956 as mentioned in his SSLC and other educational certificates.
However, after nine years of service, the petitioner wanted the State to alter his date of birth to September 23, 1958 as mentioned in his Baptism certificate.
His plea was turned down on the ground that, as per rules, such requests should be made within five years of joining service. Subsequently, he filed a civil case and obtained a decree from an Additional District Court in Pudukottai in 1999. Nevertheless, the government officials refused to change his date of birth and made him retire from service on May 31 this year even as the present writ petition was pending.
Upholding the decision of the officials, the judge said: “Even assuming for a moment that the petitioner’s parents have erroneously furnished a wrong date of birth, the petitioner has all along continued his employment on being satisfied with the same. On one fine morning, he cannot wake up and expect the officials to alter his date of birth according to his own whims and fancies and contrary to the rules.”
Rejects teacher’s plea for change of date of birth as per Baptism certificate
Dismissing a writ petition filed by the teacher seeking a direction to the Director of School Education to comply with the lower court order, Justice S. Vaidyanathan said: “It would be conjectural to presume that the petitioner’s parents might have admitted him in school at an early age either because he was a mischievous but shrewd child or because he was extremely studious.”
He went on to state: “If this petition is allowed, then there is every possibility of similarly placed persons approaching this court seeking the same relief by obtaining a judgment and decree in one way or the other… Though it is a fit case to impose costs, this court refrains from such imposition since the petitioner happens to be one belonging to a noble profession.”
The judge pointed out that the petitioner had joined government service as a Secondary Grade teacher in 1989. Then, his date of birth was recorded as October 26, 1956 as mentioned in his SSLC and other educational certificates.
However, after nine years of service, the petitioner wanted the State to alter his date of birth to September 23, 1958 as mentioned in his Baptism certificate.
His plea was turned down on the ground that, as per rules, such requests should be made within five years of joining service. Subsequently, he filed a civil case and obtained a decree from an Additional District Court in Pudukottai in 1999. Nevertheless, the government officials refused to change his date of birth and made him retire from service on May 31 this year even as the present writ petition was pending.
Upholding the decision of the officials, the judge said: “Even assuming for a moment that the petitioner’s parents have erroneously furnished a wrong date of birth, the petitioner has all along continued his employment on being satisfied with the same. On one fine morning, he cannot wake up and expect the officials to alter his date of birth according to his own whims and fancies and contrary to the rules.”
Rejects teacher’s plea for change of date of birth as per Baptism certificate
No comments:
Post a Comment