State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case Father Is the Natural Guardian After Mother’s Death, Mere Technicalities Cannot Override Welfare of Child: Orissa High Court Restores Custody to Biological Father

Civil Courts Can't Alter Birth Records of Government Employees: Madras High Court

16 September 2024 3:05 PM

By: sayum


The Madras High Court, in a recent judgment, dismissed a writ petition seeking the alteration of a petitioner’s date of birth in the service register. The petitioner, K. Subash Chandra Bose, had requested the change based on a decree obtained from a civil court, which the High Court declared "null and void." The judgment emphasized that service-related birth record alterations must follow the procedures outlined in service rules and that civil courts have no jurisdiction in such matters.

The petitioner, K. Subash Chandra Bose, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to change his date of birth in the service register from April 6, 1964, to December 12, 1966. He claimed that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded due to an inadvertent mistake during his school admission. Despite obtaining a favorable decree from the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru, in March 2024, the petitioner's request for birth record correction was rejected by the government authorities. The rejection was based on legal precedents and guidelines prohibiting such changes after certain periods, leading to the present writ petition.

The court focused on the issue of whether the decree from the civil court was binding on government authorities in altering the service records of a government servant. Referring to earlier judgments, the court noted that service matters, such as changes in the date of birth, are governed by specific rules, namely Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, now codified under Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. These rules explicitly require employees to seek alterations within a certain timeframe and through the appropriate governmental channels.

The court held that civil courts lack the authority to issue decrees in such matters, stating that a decree altering the date of birth for a government employee is "impliedly barred" under service rules. Thus, the civil court's decree was considered non-binding on the state authorities.

The court also addressed the petitioner’s claim based on his SSLC (Secondary School Leaving Certificate) examination. As per the Government Guidelines of 2018, issued following a 2017 High Court ruling, any request for birth date alteration must ensure that the individual was of legal age to sit for the SSLC exam. The petitioner would have been only 12 years and 6 months old during the examination if the requested date of birth was accepted, failing the mandatory 14-year requirement.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, delivering the judgment, reaffirmed that birth record alterations for government servants are subject to Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. The court cited past rulings, including W.P. No. 17792 of 2004 and W.P. No. 16062 of 2010, which restrict the ability of civil courts to entertain suits on such matters.

The court ruled that since the petitioner’s application for alteration of the date of birth was not in compliance with statutory rules, the decree obtained from the civil court was "null and void." It further held that service records cannot be altered on the basis of civil decrees, reaffirming that such changes must strictly adhere to governmental and service rules.

Justice Venkatesh remarked: “The jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted in matters directly concerning service records governed by specific enactments. A decree from a civil court cannot bind government authorities in altering service registers unless the proper statutory procedures have been followed.”

The dismissal of this petition reiterates the importance of adhering to statutory procedures when seeking changes in government records, particularly those related to service matters. The judgment affirms that civil courts cannot grant relief that conflicts with service rules, sending a strong message to public servants about the limitations of such legal routes. This ruling may impact future cases where similar attempts to alter service records through civil courts are made.

Date of Decision: September 06, 2024

K. Subash Chandra Bose VS The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Latest Legal News