THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS versus M. MANICKAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 10 S.C.R. 324 · Decided: 17-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 10 S.C.R. 324 
A 
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 
v. 
B 
c 
M. MANICKAM AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.7030-31 of 2011) 
AUGUST 17, 2011 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ANO 
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES: 
Rules 30 (b) and (c)'- Date of birth - Change in -
Limitation - Held: The application filed by the District Munsif . 
for change of his date of birth was filed beyond the period of 
limitation - Besides, the application was not addressed to the 
D State Government but it was addressed to the Registrar of the 
High Court - Therefore, the Officer did not follow the mandate 
and requisites of r. 30 and, as such, in terms of sub-r. (c), the 
application was to be summarily rejected - The evidence 
adduced by the Officer in suppon of his claim is most 
E 
unreliable - Further, the Officer has failed to discharge his 
onus of proving the authenticity of the horoscope on which 
reliance is placed-The Officer has failed to prove that any 
change of his date of birth is called for....: Constitution of India, 
1950 - Article 136 - Service Law - Date of birth. 
F 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A: 
Article 136 - Appeal by special leave - Appreciation of 
evidence - Suit filed for declaration and mandatory injunction 
to correct plaintiff's date of birth recorded in the S.S.L.C, 
G Certificate and the service record - Ultimately, decreed by 
High Court - Held: Change of date of birth is a very important 
responsibility to be discharged -
There must be strong, 
cogent and reliable evidence in support of the claim that the 
date of birth entered in the service records or S.S. L. C. 
H 
324 
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS 325 
v. M. MANICKAM 
certificate was wrongly entered by mistake - The evidence A 
adduced by the officer in support of his case is most unreliable 
- Since the horoscope is the primary document on which 
reliance is placed, there cannot be any bar to examine the 
authenticity and evidentiary value of the same while 
exercising the power under Article 136 as it permits such a 
B 
scrutiny particularly when it relates to the change of date of 
birth of a person who seeks to get an advantage to his benefit 
to which he otherwise may not be entitled - On a close 
examination of the horoscope and the related documents, it 
is evident that the plaintiff has failed to discharge his onus in c 
proving the authenticity of the horoscope - The judgment and 
the decree passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and 
are set aside - The suit stands dismissed - Service Law -
Evidence. 
EVIDENCE: 
Date of birth - Proving of -Medical certificate - Held: The 
medical certificate produced in· the instant case is described 
D 
as "Age Proof Certificate" -
It is very vague and unreliable -
Whether or not any radiological examination or any E 
ossification test was conducted is not reflected in the certificate 
- It only states that on the basis of physical examination and 
. from appearance of the Officer and on the basis of his own 
statement the age was determined -
The doctor who was 
examined to prove the certificate also did not produce any test 
F 
report or copy thereof - Thus, reliance cannot be placed on 
the authenticity and validity of the said age proof certificate -
Service Law. 
Respondent No.1 joined as District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate on 4.11.1988 in the State of Tamil 
G 
Nadu. On 11.11.1993 he submitted an application to the 
Registrar, High Court of Madras seeking to change his 
date of birth from 19.3.1947 to 24.11.1950. Subsequently, 
he filed a suit bearing O.S. No.549 of 1995 in the Court of 
H 
326 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 
A the District Munsif for a declaration that his date of birth 
was 24.11.1950, and for a mandatory injunction to enter 
his date of birth in the S.S.L.C. book and in the service 
records as 24.11.1950 instead of 19.3.1947. The suit was 
' decreed with a mandatory injunction to make the change 
B of date of birth in S.S.L.C. book. The appeal filed by 
respondent nos.2 to 4 was allowed by the Sub-Judge. 
However, the second appeal filed by respondent no.1 
was allowed by the High Court. The review petition filed 
by the Registrar General, High Court of Madras having 
k; been dismissed, he filed the appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Sub rule (b) of r.30 of the Tamil Nadu State 
Judicial Service Rules provides that after the person has 
P entered the service by direct recruitment, an application 
I 
to correct 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.