Service register entries can be altered only after applications are filed: Madras HC

Chennai: The Madras high court has held that the entries made in the service register based on the documents produced by an employee at the time of the appointment and recruitment cannot be altered unless applications are filed in time together with such supporting documents before the competent authority to enable the latter to make alterations in the service register.

Allowing an appeal filed by the state government, a division bench comprising Justices R.Subbiah and C.Saravanan gave the ruling while setting aside an order of a single judge, which directed the authorities to alter K. Chandrasekaran’s, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, date of birth from March 5, 1961 to September 21, 1962 in the service register.

Chandrasekaran joined the Tamil Nadu Police Service as a Reserve sub-inspector on September 18, 1987. Soon after his appointment, he applied for alteration of his date of birth. After several round of litigation and approaching the authorities, he managed to obtain a fresh birth certificate and approached the authorities to alter the date of birth. While the fresh certificate was pending verification, he approached the Madras high court and a single judge had directed the authorities to alter his date of birth while observing that since the petitioner was nearing the age of superannuation and had applied for alteration of the date of birth in time, it was not open to the authorities to delay further stating that an enquiry was pending. Meanwhile, sub-collector, Namakkal, after verification, rejected the claim of Chandrasekaran. Hence, the state filed the present appeal.

The bench said though Chandrasekaran had approached the authorities as early as in 1988, it was noticed that he was advised to approach the education department. Thereafter he filed a suit. He complicated the issue further by approaching civil court and thereafter preferred an appeal which was also dismissed for default. Thereafter, he kept quiet for another 15 years. Thus, 28 precious years were wasted by him and had remained silent and had accepted the fact that the entry in the service register cannot be altered, the bench added.

The bench said subsequent alteration in the birth register on December 2, 2015 and production of the same were belated. “This on the verge of his superannuation, in our view, Chandrasekaran was guilty of latches. In any event, this certificate was subject to verification and scrutiny. The sub-collector, Namakkal, who was asked to verify the genuineness of the certificate, has raised reasonable doubt regarding the genuineness of the claim of chandrasekaran that he was born on September 21, 1962”, the bench added.

The bench said the sub-collector has opined that if Chandrasekaran was born on September 21, 1962, he would have been merely aged 3 years and therefore could not have been admitted in first standard. Though Chandrasekaran had managed to get the birth certificate altered on December 2, 2015, post facto, the competent authority has rejected the corrections/change in the date of birth. Thus, the alternation in the birth register appears to be without any basis. Therefore, alteration in the date of birth certificate cannot be relied upon any longer particularly in the light of post facto report of the competent authority dated January 21, 2019 questioning the genuineness of the claim. Therefore, the order of the single judge cannot be sustained, the bench added.