FACTS:
M. Manickam, Respondent No. 1, joined the State Subordinate Judicial Service as District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate on 04.11.1988. It is alleged by him that in his service records, his date of birth has been entered as 19.03.1947 whereas his actual date of birth is 24.11.1950 and that due to the wrong entry of his date of birth in the service records, he would retire earlier than his actual date of superannuation.
Thereafter he filed a Suit before the District Munsif Court, Karur, for a declaration that his date of birth is 24.11.1950 and for a mandatory injunction to enter his actual date of birth in his S.S.L.C. book and in the Service Records. The Munsif Court decreed the suit in favour of Respondent No. 1 and against Respondent Nos. 2-4. The Munsif Court granted mandatory injunction against Respondent Nos. 2-4 to make the change of date of birth in their S.S.L.C. book. However, mandatory injunction against the present appellant to alter the date of birth in the service register was not granted.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Munsif Court, Respondent Nos. 2-4 filed an appeal before the Sub-Judge, Karur which was allowed. Against the said order of the Sub-Judge, Respondent No. 1 preferred Second Appeal before the High Court of Madras which allowed the second appeal and restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Also, the Review Petition filed by the appellant herein before the High Court got dismissed.
Against these orders of the High Court the appellant has filed the present appeal.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT:
The learned counsel submitted that the application filed by the respondent seeking for change of his date of birth was filed after the period of limitation contemplated under the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules which is five years and therefore the decree and the judgment passed by the High Court affirming the decree of the Munsif is illegal and erroneous. According to the appellant, the formal application was filed by respondent No. 1 only to the Madras High Court requesting for passing suitable orders directing concerned authorities to change his date of birth.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT:
It was submitted by the respondent that in the present case he had submitted not only documentary evidence in support of his claim but such a claim for change of his date of birth was also supported by medical evidence and also oral evidence. He submitted that the aforesaid change of date of birth in the S.S.L.C. certificate was made pursuant to an order made by the competent authority and therefore, there is nothing wrong in relying on the same by the High Court as also by the Munsif Court who held in favour of respondent No. 1.
HELD:
The Apex Court held that the the actions of the respondent were in contravention to Rule 30 of the then Rules which was the relevant service Rule for deciding the case provides for the procedure for alteration of date of birth. It further asserted that the evidences adduced by respondent No. 1 in support of his case were mostly unreliable.
The bench held that the judgment and the decree passed by the Munsif Court which is affirmed by the High Court could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal was allowed.