U.Ganesan v. The General Manager,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.13968 of 2026 & W.M.P(MD)No.10412 of 2026 U.Ganesan
...Petitioner
vs.
1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Karaikudi Region, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Karaikudi Region, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings vide its reference in Paarvai.ThaAPoKa/Kaarai/NiPi/A1/168-1/2026 dated 06.03.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to alter petitioner's date of birth as 11.11.1972, instead of 08.04.1967 in the service record, the petitioner's Service No.10DR3385/19190 within the time frame as fixed by this Court.
1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings in Paarvai.ThaAPoKa/ Kaarai/NiPi/A1/168-1/2026, dated 06.03.2026, passed by the 2nd respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to alter the petitioner's date of birth as 11.11.1972, instead of 08.04.1967 in the service record, with petitioner's Service No.10DR3385/19190.
2. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents.
3. By consent on either sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation. 2/6
5. The petitioner herein who was appointed as a temporary Driver on 27.09.2008 claims to have made a request for alteration of his date of birth from 08.04.1967 to 11.11.1972 by submitting a representation dated 10.06.2010. It is thereafter, the petitioner's services were regularised with effect from 21.11.2011 through proceedings in ThaNaAPoKa/NiPi/ Aa5/3881, dated 21.11.2011. The petitioner having continued in service as a Driver claims to have submitted a representation dated 20.07.2020 and another representation on 09.02.2026 requesting for alteration of his date of birth. The said request of the petitioner was negatived through the impugned proceedings passed by the second respondent dated 06.03.2026. It is aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Though the petitioner claims to have submitted representations on 10.06.2010 and 20.07.2020, there is nothing on record to show that the said representations were in fact submitted before the respondents Corporation seeking alteration of date of birth. The only acknowledgment that is available is another representation of the petitioner dated 09.02.2026 sent by him through registered post. The said representation is now considered by the respondents Corporation and rejected through the impugned order. 3/6
7. Taking into account, the actual date of birth that was entered in the service records as well as in SSLC Certificate, the age of the petitioner as of now is 59 and he is due to attain age superannuation by April 2027. In the absence of proof, it would be hard to accept that the petitioner had made any such claim prior to 09.02.2026. It is settled law that any request for alteration of date of birth on the fag end of service shall not be entertained, as held by the Honourable Apex Court. In the considered view of this Court, the claim made by the petitioner, a year before the date of retirement cannot be entertained.
8. Be that as it may, in case, if the date of birth that is being claimed by the petitioner i.e., 11.11.1972 is to be taken into consideration, the petitioner would not have been eligible for SSLC examination for which he appeared in the year 1985. SSLC Certificate is basis for the petitioner to get employment in the respondents Corporation. For this reason also, the claim made by the petitioner cannot be entertained. Therefore, this Court is thoroughly convinced that the petitioner is not entitled to seek alteration of his date of birth.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent is not the competent Authority to pass the impugned order 4/6
and only the first respondent can pass the order is concerned, this Court is not convinced with such submission for the simple reason that even otherwise, the claim of the petitioner for alteration of date of birth in the fag end of service is not in accordance with law. Therefore, it does not make any difference whether the second respondent or the first respondent passed the impugned order. Hence, this Court is not inclined to accept the request of the petitioner to remand the matter to the first respondent for reconsideration. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this Writ Petition.
10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed in the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 01.06.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No mbi 5/6
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR , J.
mbi 01.06.2026 6/6