AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 291 wordsD.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
The writ petition is filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service till 30.09.2028.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it can be seen that the petitioner was recruited as Junior Assistant in the year 2009 and while his school records depict his date of birth as 24.05.1966, it is his contention that his actual date of birth as per the birth certificate is 14.08.1968. Immediately within the period of five years as mentioned in the Rules, the petitioner made an application to alter his date of birth by application dated 30.07.2010. The respondents kept it pending and finally disposed of the same only on 07.03.2024 by rejecting the request and the consequential order was also passed only on 15.11.2024. The petitioner had also challenged the same by way of filing W.P.(MD)No.290 of 2025 and the same is pending. Now age of superannuation as per the unaltered date of birth is fast approaching on 31.05.2026 and the respondents are taking steps to relieve the petitioner on that date. Therefore, the petitioner has come up by way of the present writ petition.
When the request for correction of date of birth is rejected, unless the said order is set aside, by way of Mandamus, this Court cannot permit the petitioner to continue in service beyond the date of superannuation. Even considering the balance of convenience, the petitioner ought to have filed an interim application only in W.P.(MD)No.290 of 2025. Therefore, keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to urgently move an interim application in W.P.(MD)No.290 of 2025, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.