S. Rajesh Kumar vs The Secretary, Board of Higher Secondary Education

Mr. S. Manikumar, J.—A practicing lawyer has filed this writ petition for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider his representation, dated 03.09.2009 and to change the petitioner''s date of birth as 19.01.1975, instead of 31.01.1974, in the educational certificate.

According to him, he was born on 19.01.1975 at Chayaparambu Thiruvarambu in Kanyakumari District and that the same was registered on 24.01.1975 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Thiruvattar. He has completed S.S.L.C and Higher secondary courses in October 1990 and September 1993 respectively in L.M.S.(Boys) Higher Secondary School, Marthandam, the fourth respondent school. At the time of entry, due to wrong declaration by his parents, the date of birth has been registered as 31.07.1974. However, as per the birth extract, his date of birth is 19.01.1975. He has completed Post Graduate degree in Vinayaka Missions University, Ariyanoor. His date of birth has been correctly mentioned as 19.01.1975 in the Post Graduate certificate. In such circumstances, the petitioner has made a representation on 03.09.2009, to rectify his date of birth. The same has not been done. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition for a Mandamus, as stated supra.

On the above pleadings and placing reliance on the orders of this Court in W.P.No.3080 of 2008, dated 12.08.2008, and made in W.P.No.36347 of 2006 dated 30.09.2009 and W.P.(MD)No.9800 of 2009, dated 21.10.2009, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if there is any difference in the entry between the school record and the birth extract issued by the statutory authority, under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the birth extract alone has to be considered and hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are bound to alter the entry in the school records by considering his representation.

Per contra, based on the counter affidavit filed by the District Educational Officer, Thuckalay, Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.1438, Education Department, dated 16.12.1985, the Government have designated the Director of School Education, Chennai as the competent authority to issue necessary instructions in respect of correction of date of birth in the secondary school leaving certificate. Again the Government, in its letter dated 16.12.1985, have ordered that in the civil suits seeking change of date of birth in the secondary school leaving certificate, the Secretary to the Government Education, Department, Chennai, need not be impleaded as a party respondent, since the Director of School Education Chennai alone is the competent authority to order correction of date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate.

Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that as per the subsidiary Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Scheme, the request for correction of date of birth cannot be considered after the pupil had completed school course. According to him, the declaration given by the parents at the time of entry in the secondary school leaving certificate cannot be altered after a long lapse of time. He also submitted that for admission to standard 1, a pupil should have completed the age of five years as on 31st July of the year of admission. If the date of birth of the petitioner has to be changed as 19.01.1975, then he would not even satisfy the minimum age prescribed for admission to school. He also relied on a judgment made in W.P.No.4244 of 1965, dated 25.10.1965, wherein this Court after considering the Subsidiary Rule 5 of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Scheme held that there is no scope for correcting the date of birth, once the student left the school. For the above said reasons, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire materials available on record.

As per the birth extract enclosed in the typed set of papers, the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 19.01.1975. The certificate has been issued by the Sub Registrar, Thiruvattar. The date of birth entered in the secondary school leaving certificate and the higher secondary school leaving certificate is 31.07.1974. The transfer certificate issued by the L.M.S.(Boys) Higher Secondary School, Marthandam, also shows that date of birth is 31.07.1974. The marks statement issued by Vinayaka Missions University for Post Graduate Degree in M.A. Political Science course shows the date of birth as 19.01.1975. In the typed set of papers, the petitioner has enclosed a copy of the representation said to have been submitted to the educational authorities.

In M. Krishnamurthy v. The Director of Public Instruction, Madras- 6, reported in 1966 MLJ 80, the petitioner therein has filed a writ petition for a Mandamus to issue a direction to the then Director of Public Instruction, Chennai to correct the age in the secondary school leaving certificate register.

At paragraph 2, this Court has held as follows:

"It is difficult to see what duty is cast upon the Director of Public Instruction to correct an entry in the School-Leaving Certificate more particularly when the petitioner is no longer a student of any school. It is however urged by Mr. Chengalvaroyan that the wrong entry in the S.S.L.C register will have a deleterious effect on the future prospects of the petitioner in that unless it is corrected he has no other means of getting his correct age being accepted, by whatever authorities he may approach. The decision in Ramamurthi v. Director of Public Instruction reported in 1943 2 MLJ 665 has been referred to. That was a case for the issue of a mandamus under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act and the learned Judge observed that to have on the school certificate a date which does not correspond with the Certificate of the Register of Births is absurd and should not be permitted to remain by any public authority. This decision however has not been wholly accepted in Director of Public Instruction v. Mohandas reported in 1955 1 MLJ 488. In that decision it was pointed out that the ultimate decision in the earlier case referred to was supported by the rules according to which the Director of Public Instruction was bound to deal with the matter on merits. But the learned Judges who decided the latter case did not fully accept the observations of Bell,J., that there was any duty on the part of the Director of Public Instruction to make a correction solely because the recorded age differed from the age which appeared in other public records. Mr. Chengalvaroyan does not deny that the Director of Public Instruction may be said to be under a duty to effect the correction so long as the petitioner continued to be a student. When once the petitioner ceased to be a student there was nothing in relation to him that the Director of Public Instruction is called upon by any regulation to do and if that should be the correct position, the Director of Public Instruction was justified in rejecting the application. This petition is accordingly dismissed".

The Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.758, Education Science and Technology(E1) Department, dated 25.10.1996, regarding the alteration of date of birth in the secondary school leaving certificate. The said government order is extracted hereunder:

Proceedings of the Director of School Education, R.C.No.129747/Rs/96, dated 14.11.1996.

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Education- School Education-Secondary School Leaving Certificate Book Alteration of date of birth in Secondary School Leaving Certificate Book - Instructions - Orders - Issued.

Education, Science & Technology (E1) Department

G.O.Ms.No.758 dated 25.10.1996

G.ONo.1339/Education/dated 22.09.1989

From the Director of School Education, Lr.No. J.86813/K2/89, dated 05.1.90.

From the Director of School Education, Lr.No.101/R2/96, dated 2.1.1996.

ORDER

In the G.O.first read above, the following instructions were issued regarding alteration of date of birth of students and others other than Government servants in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Book:-

If the parents (or)guardians alone are impleaded for alterations of date of birth and the Court passed decree as prayed for, where the Government(Director of School Education) not a party, the Department need not carry out such order.

In cases where the Director of School Education or Government or Departmental Officer is impleaded as a party and the court declaring the correct date of birth of the individuals but directing the defendants to carry out necessary correction, the Director of School Education may be requested to carry out a correction in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate book, even if there is no direction by the Court, provided the individuals whose dates of birth are altered are not stated Government Servants or employees of Local Bodies/Quasi Government Bodies/Aided Educational Institutions.

2.1. The Director of School Education has now reported, quoting earlier orders, that the request for alteration of date of birth is being complied with, only when specific directions are issued by the Court and the request for alteration of date of birth merely based on court declaration is not being entertained and that in almost all the cases, candidates are applying for alteration of date of birth after obtaining both declaration and Mandatory injunction. The Director of School Education has further stated that the Court also grants only limited relief (i.e)mere declaration and specifically refuses the mandatory injunction. The Director of School Education has, therefore, requested the Government to consider and issue orders insisting mandatory injunction (direction of the Court as a pre-requisite condition to carry out corrections in Secondary School Leaving Certificate Book of all persons irrespective of the fact whether they are Government Servants, students or anybody.

The Government have examined the matter in detail and issued the following instructions in supersession of the provisional instructions issued in this regard:-

(i) If the Director of school Education is impleaded as a part of the suit, then specific direction of Competent Court to the Director of School Education is necessary for alteration of date of birth of the plaintiff in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Book.

(ii) The Correction to be made in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Book and the Correction to be made in the Service Register of a Government Servant are different issues. The Correction in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Book has to be made with reference to the declaration as well as mandatory injunction of a court in that prospect without any discrimination between Government Servant and others, any request for making alteration of date of birth in the service register of a Government servant has to be examined under General Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service. In that case, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is competent to entertain any request from a Government servant.

(iii) In civil suits filed by Government Servants, if a prayer is included for alteration of date of birth entered in the Service Records, the defendant Government Officer should specifically point out in the Written Statement that on and from 12.12.1988, no court except the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal has powers to adjudicate the claim for alteration of date of birth of Government Servants in their service Registers and that the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal alone is the competent authority to entertain such requests from the Government servants with effect from 12.12.1988.

This order issued with concurrence of Personal and Administrative Reforms Department vide its U.O.No.41813/S/96, dated 16.07.1996

(By order of the Governor)"

Reading of the above said Government order makes it clear that Subsidiary Rule 5 relied on by the respondents has been diluted by stating that if a request for alteration of date of birth is made by a Government servant, then it has to be considered under rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and in such circumstances, the Administrative Tribunal shall be the competent forum. From the above, it is evident that even after completion of the course or leaving the school, and if an individual joins the Government, statutory rules governing the government servant enables him to seek for alteration of date of birth, subject to the conditions stipulated under the service rules. If a Government servant, after leaving the school can seek for correction of date of birth in the service records, then, an individual, other than a government servant, can also seek for correction of date of birth in the school records. There cannot be a different yardstick between Government servants and others. Under the service rules, if sufficient evidence is produced along with an application for alteration of date of birth within the time, prescribed under the rules, then an enquiry is ordered, if required. If the Government servant, establishes that his date of birth was wrongly entered then necessary changes are made in the service register. Even in such cases, ie., long after leaving the school, the government servant is always driven to approach the civil court for any declaration and consequential mandatory order. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that no alteration in the date of birth in the school records, can be made after the student leaves the secondary education course and that therefore, the petitioner has no remedy at all cannot be countenanced. If the Government or the appointing authority as the case may be, can examine the evidence produced by the Government servant and alter the date of birth in the service register, an individual, who is not a Government servant is equally entitled to seek for alteration of date in the school records, on the same analogy. Filing of a suit is for a declaration that a person was born on a particular date and the consequential mandatory order is to effect alteration in the records. If an individual who seeks for alteration of date of birth in the school records, does not substantiate his claim with sufficient evidence, then a declaration from the civil court to that effect would be necessitated and insisted. But if the person seeks for alteration in the school records, substantiates his claim with authentic and legal evidence, then in such case, he should not be driven to civil court, to declare his date of birth.

In W.P.No.3080 of 2008, the petitioner therein has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, the first respondent either to furnish a non availability certificate of Registration of Birth of the minor child Yogitha @ Vijayalakshmi or to register the date of birth of the minor girl based on the Birth Certificate issued by the second respondent or in the alternative to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Madurai to entertain the petition under Section 13(3) of Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 of the minor girl Yogitha @ Vidyalakshmi for Registration of Birth and pass orders based on the particulars and documents furnished by the petitioner.

Perusal of the order made in W.P.No.3080 of 2008, dated 12.08.2008 shows that the second respondent therein was a non governmental organisation, maintaining an orphanage for destitute children and it has also been recognised as an adoption agency for giving in adoption of eligible children maintained by them. The said girl child has been adopted by the petitioner therein. The petitioner and his wife have filed an application before the first Additional District Judge under Sections 2,6,7 read with 9(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The said application in H.A.O.P.No.47 of 2007, was for grant of permission to take the minor girl child in permanent adoption from the first respondent and along with the application, the petitioners therein have also filed a birth certificate dated 30.06.2004, of the minor child showing her date of birth as 23.04.2004 and it has been marked as Ex.P.4 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Madurai. In the order passed by the learned District Judge, the date of birth of the girl child has been noted as 23.04.2004. Though the date of birth of the child was noted as 23.04.2004, in the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Madurai, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he had filed an affidavit before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, seeking for a direction to the respondent Corporation to make an entry of the name of the petitioner''s child in the Register of Birth maintained by the Corporation, Madurai and for the issuance of a birth certificate.

Pursuant to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the Government of India, in July 1989, have issued certain guidelines to facilitate the implementation of the norms, principles and procedure relating to adoption of children, which are as follows:

"(i)An application is to be made by the agency to the local Magistrate along with any other relevant material in the form of an affidavit made by responsible person belong to the agency.

(ii)The Magistrate is to pass an order approving the particulars to be entered in the birth certificate and same is to be issued by the registrar of the area where the child was found.

(iii)The Chief Medical officer of the District is to be involved in ascertaining the age and the Magistrate would ordinarily act on the certificate granted by him.

(iv)Normally, the process should be initiated before the adoption is finalised, so that the particulars of adoptive parents are available for inclusion in the certificate.

(v)If the child has attained three years of age and adoption has not been finalised, the agency is to obtain a birth certificate, if found necessary, after informing the court in the form of an affidavit giving the following details:-

(a)that to the best of its knowledge the child has attained the age of three years;

(b)that his/her adoption has not been finalised and is likely to take some time or may never be finalized in all probability.

(c)that a certificate is required for education/medical/legal purposes or any other reasonable purpose which may be specified; and d)that person/persons would stand in as local parents to the child (this person/these persons should be a reasonable person/responsible persons belonging to the placement agency) till such time as he/she attains majority, or is adopted, whichever is earlier.

(vi)A school birth certificate is to be issued after adoption to provide for a change in name/names of the child and the adoptive parent/parents after obtaining an order to that effect from the Court which had passed order for, issuing the original birth certificate".

The Hon''ble Judge in W.P.No.3080 of 2008, dated 12.08.2008 has also considered the statutory provisions under Sections 14 and 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and ultimately held that the date of birth entered in the order made in H.A.O.P.No.47 of 2007, dated 20.01.2006 can be considered as date of birth of the minor child for all purposes and accordingly granted declaration.

The said judgment relied on by the present petitioner can be taken into consideration for the limited purpose that the date of birth entered in the birth extract issued by the competent authority can be relied on by the courts.

In W.P.No.36347 of 2006, the petitioner therein has challenged an order dated 07.10.1996 passed by the Commissioner, Director of Employment Training, Chennai, the second respondent therein refusing to alter the date of birth as 14.01.1953, as per the birth extract. At the time of entering into service, the petitioner therein has given the date of birth as 3.11.1951 and on the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai the request of the petitioner therein has been rejected.

In the above said case, the Director of Employment Training Chennai, has filed a reply affidavit stating that when the petitioner made a gazette notification for change of his name, on 3.12.1980, he had given his date of birth as 3.11.1951, in the gazette publication and similarly, the petitioner''s father had also signed in the first page of the secondary school leaving certificate book, wherein the date of birth has been mentioned as 3.11.1951. Therefore, it has been submitted that there is no illegality in the order rejecting the request of the petitioner for alteration of date of birth.

In the above said circumstances, placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Government of A.P. v. M.Hayagreev Sarma reported in (1990) 2 SCC 682 and in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Bhagvan V. Lahane, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 247, this Court has dismissed the writ petition upholding the rejecting order passed by the Director of Employment Training, Chennai. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

"7. The first is the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Government of A.P.Vs.M.Hayagreev Sarma reported in (1990) 2 SCC 682. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment may be usefully extracted below:

"7. The object underlying Rule 4 is to avoid repeated applications by a government employee for the correction of his date of birth and with that end in view it provides that a government servant whose date of birth may have been recorded in the service register in accordance with the rules applicable to him and if that entry had become final under the rules prior to the commencement of 1984 Rules, he will not be entitled for alteration of his date of birth. Rule 4 laid down a salutary principle to prohibit reopening of the question of correction of date of birth which may have become final prior to the enforcement of 1984 Rules. Since the question of alteration of the respondent''s date of birth had been made on the basis of the school certificate and his application for alteration had already been rejected in 1968, he was not entitled to claim alteration of his date of birth after the enforcement of 1984 Rules. It was not open to the respondent to claim alteration of his date of birth, even on the basis of extracts of the entry contained in births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 as the question of correction of his date of birth had already been finally decided in 1968.

As regards validity of Rule 5 is concerned, the view taken by the Tribunal is wholly misconceived. Rule 5 lays down that where application of a government employee for alteration of his date of birth was pending on the date of the commencement of 1984 Rules the same will be dealt with on the basis of date of birth recorded in the school and college records at the time of the entry of the employee into service. In substance Rule 5 lays down that the pending applications of the employees for alteration of their date of birth shall be decided on the basis of the age as recorded in the school and college records. Thus if on the date of entry into service the date of birth of an employee was recorded in his service book on the basis of his age as recorded in the school and college certificate in that event the date so recorded shall be treated to be correct date of birth. However, if the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of the entry of an employee is not based on school or college records the Rule 5 does not operate as a bar to consideration of other relevant materials in determining the date of birth of the employee. In the instant case, as already noted the respondent date of birth had been recorded in his service book on the basis of his SSLC certificate, at the time of his entry into service, therefore, that entry had become final and he was not entitled to reopen the correctness of that entry on the basis of extract of birth register. Moreover, since the respondent''s application for alteration of his date of birth had already been decided prior to enforcement of Rule 5, he was not entitled to maintain application for any alteration of his date of birth. In either case respondent was not entitled to claim alteration of his date of birth, his application was rightly rejected although on different grounds.

The second decision related to the judgment in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Bhagwan V.Lahane reported in (1997) 1 SCC 247. The following passage found in paragraph 6 may be usefully extracted below:

"6....The respondent ought to have produced the reliable material to show that the date of birth mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate was incorrect. No such material was produced by him. The extract from the birth register produced by him along with his representation being inconsistent with the School Leaving Certificate produced by him earlier, he ought to have proved to the satisfaction of the competent authority that he was given a name before or soon after his birth and that his name was entered in the birth register at the time of registration of his birth. Ordinarily, a child is not given a name before birth and in the entry in the birth register only sex, viz., male or female would be mentioned. After naming ceremony, the name is given. It is, therefore, highly doubtful if the parents of the respondent who were villagers and illiterate had named the appellant either before or on the day of his birth. The explanation given now on behalf of the respondent that his elder brother, who was named Bhagwan, was born on 12-11-1949 and died on 26-11-1949 and, therefore, his date of birth cannot be 12-11-1948 is also not convincing. His further explanation that as his elder brother died, his parents thought of calling him by the same name is also not believable. Moreover, if that was so, his parents would not have committed a mistake in giving his date of birth to the school authorities even though they were illiterate. It appears that he got the entry in the birth register corrected, then obtained a copy of it and produced the same before the authority. Once it was found to be doubtful, the authorities were right in not correcting his date of birth in the service-book. Admittedly, the School Leaving Certificate was produced by the respondent and the entry in the service-book was made on the basis of the date of birth mentioned therein. As he failed to show that the said entry was made due to want of care on the part of some other person or that it was an obvious clerical error, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the appellant to correct the same".

The judgment in W.P.No.36347 of 2006 has been rendered following the judgments of the Supreme Court, with reference to the service rules applicable to the case of the government servants wherein under the service rules, there is a specific provision relating to alteration of date of birth and that the entry made in the service register had come to a finality. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the judgment is applicable to the facts of this case.

In W.P.(MD)No.9800 of 2009, the petitioner therein has challenged an order dated 17.08.2009 passed by the Joint Director (Employees) Department of Government Examinations, Chennai rejecting the request of the petitioner for alteration of his date of birth. Consequently, he has prayed for a direction to the third respondent therein to implement the corrections in the date of birth in the secondary school leaving certificate as per the entry made in his birth certificate.

A plea has been made before this court by the petitioner therein that the certificate given by the competent authority under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 read with Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000, should be considered and accordingly, the correction has to be incorporated. The petitioner has also placed reliance on certain decisions.

Opposing the relief, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that the date of birth mentioned and recorded in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate being the earliest document and that the date of birth has been given by the father of the petitioner and in such circumstances, the date of birth mentioned in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, cannot be overlooked. He has also submitted that the certificate obtained by the petitioner therein from the municipal authority was subsequent one.

After considering the rival submissions, this Court has framed the following question:

"The crux of the question involved in this matter is whether the date of birth entered into the secondary school leaving certificate is to be relied or the birth certificate issued by the municipal authority/second respondent is to be relied for determining the correct age of the petitioner".

After considering the rival submissions, this Court at paragraphs 8 and 9 has held as follows:

"8. It is pertinent to note that the certificate issued by the second respondent herein is correct as the said authority, as already pointed out, is the competent authority and further the certificate issued by the second respondent reveals that the said certificate is based on the extract taken from the original register which makes it crystal clear that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded and there is no reason to doubt about the date of birth certificate issued by the second respondent herein.

This Court while dealing with a similar question has categorically held in W.P.No.5929 of 2008, dated 14.08.2008 that the certificate issued by the competent authority has to be preferred than the school certificate. The learned Judge in that decision relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 1587 (Santenu Mitra v. State of West Bengal). The another decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is 1989 Writ L.R. (S.P.Chandra Mohan (Minor) rep. by his father; natural Guardian v. Panneerselvam) wherein, this Court has taken a view that the date of birth mentioned in the birth extract from the Municipality is more reliable and authenticated one. In another decision reported in AIR 1966 Patna 458 (Tata Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., Jamshedpur v. Abdul Wahab), the Patna High Court has held that the mere entry in the school admission register could not be taken to be conclusive proof as the correct date of birth. In yet another decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in AIR 1970 Calcutta 292 (Dalim Kumar Sain and others v. Smt.Nandarani Dassi and another) the Calcutta High Court has held that the certified copy signed by the Chief Executive Officer of Municipal Corporation is automatic evidence as public document and as such the said document would amount to a conclusive evidence unless the same is disproved in other evidence".

The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 has come into force from 02.06.1969, to provide for regulation of registration of births and deaths for all matters connected therewith. Section 15 of the above said Act deals with corrections or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths which is extracted hereunder:

"15. Corrections or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths:-If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances in which such entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign the marginal entry and add thereto the date of the correction or cancellation".

As per Section 16 of the above said Act, the Registrars have to keep the registers in the prescribed form which is as follows:

"16. Registrars to keep registers in the prescribed form:-

(1)Every Registrar shall keep in the prescribed form a register of births and deaths for the registration area or any part thereof in relation to which he exercises jurisdiction.

(2)The Chief Registrar shall cause to be printed and supplied a sufficient number of register books for making entries of births and deaths according to such forms and instructions as may from time to time, be prescribed; and a copy of such forms in the local language shall be posted in some conspicuous place on or near outer door of the office of every Registrar".

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:

"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 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.

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.

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

(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 Section 115 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 sub-rules (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 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".

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.

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.

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 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.

In the light of the decision made in W.P.No.9800 of 2009, dated 21.10.2009 in R. Deepak v. 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.

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.