(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to give the petitioner posting order based on his order Ku.No.1143/Papi4/TNSTC(V)/Vellore/2007 dated 31.07.2007 selecting the petitioner to the post of Conductor taking his date of birth as 20.06.1967.)The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to give the petitioner posting order based on his order in Ku.No.1143/Papi4/TNSTC(V)/Vellore/2007 dated 31.07.2007 to the post of Conductor taking his date of birth as 20.06.1967.2. The very short facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows:(i) The petitioner attended the interview, as his name had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the respondent / Transport Corporation for the consideration of appointment to the post of Conductor. In this regard, on 10.04.2007, letter was issued to call the petitioner to attend an interview and the date of interview was fixed on 17.05.2007. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner attended the interview. After the interview, it seems that, since the petitioner has crossed successfully the interview, the respondent / Transport Corporation, having selected the petitioner for the purpose of consideration of certificate verification before giving appointment, had issued another communication dated 31.07.2007, directing the petitioner to attend certificate verification session along with the certificates stated therein and also a demand draft for a sum of Rs.750/~ towards the fee for the training to be undergone by the petitioner.(ii) In order to appreciate the content of the said letter dated 31.07.2007, the same is extracted hereunder:“TAMIL”(iii) The petitioner also was directed to attend the certificate verification session on 14.08.2007, accordingly he attended, where, after having verified the certificates of the petitioner, the respondent seems to have found that, the petitioner-s date of birth in the Transfer Certificate produced by him, has been mentioned as 20.06.1967, whereas, in the SSLC mark sheet produced by the petitioner his date of birth has been mentioned as 20.06.1965. Because of this discrepancy, which was found by the respondent department at the time of certificate verification, they did not accept the candidature of the petitioner, therefore the petitioner could not get the appointment. Only at this juncture, the petitioner approached this Court, by filing the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer, in the year 2008.3. Mr.Ajay Khose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the discrepancy, which was found in the date of birth of the petitioner, as has been entered in the SSLC mark statement, is a mere printing mistake, as, instead of 20.06.1967, it has been wrongly printed as 20.06.1965. Therefore, the petitioner took enormous effect to the Education Department, to rectify the mistake, who, on considering the request of the petitioner, by proceedings dated 11.12.2009, has rectified the said mistake and accordingly, the SSLC mark statement has been corrected with the date of birth as 20.06.1967 instead of 20.06.1965.4. Only after getting the said correction in the mark statement, the corrected mark statement obtained by the petitioner were filed before this Court along with M.P. No. 1 of 2013 seeking such permission to file those documents before this Court for consideration.5. He would also submit that, however, since this Writ Petition has been pending all along, till date, no progress could be made and as of now, the petitioner is 53 years of age. Therefore, if the respondent considered the candidature of the petitioner, he should be considered for appointment from the original date i.e., in the year 2007 and accordingly, appointment with notional benefits shall be given to the petitioner, however he would be entitled to the monetary benefits only from the date, the petitioner joined the service. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court in the above line and he wants the Writ Petition to be ordered accordingly.6. However, Mr.C.S.K.Sathish, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent / Transport Corporation submitted that, it is an admitted fact that, there has been a discrepancy in the certificate produced by the petitioner, especially the Transfer Certificate as well as the SSLC mark statement, insofar as, entry of the date of birth of the petitioner is concerned. Whether it is a typographical error or otherwise, it is for the concerned authorities, who gave the certificate, has to rectify it and unless the same is rectified and a document to that effect is produced, the petitioner, even though successfully participated in the interview conducted by the respondent, could not be considered further for appointment as Conductor.7. He would further submit that, however, after filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner was able to get correction in the mark statement with regard to the date of birth, sometime in the year 2009, however he chosen to file Miscellaneous Petition to accept these documents only in the year 2013.8. At any rate, since the petitioner has already reached the age of 53 which is well above the upper age limit of even for the candidates belong to a BC or MBC or SC communal category, for whom, there could be a relaxation of upper age limit, even such upper age limit has already been crossed by the petitioner. Therefore, at this juncture, it is not possible for the respondent / Transport Corporation to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner, in view of the correction made in the certificate concerned about his date of birth for the purpose of appointment. Hence, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent seeks dismissal of this Writ Petition.9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.10. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner-s name had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, as per the request made by the respondent / Transport Corporation, for the purpose of consideration of appointment to the post of Conductor. As per the sponsorship made by the Employment Exchange, the petitioner was permitted to attend the interview on 17.05.2007, the petitioner has also attended the interview and after successfully completing the interview process, the petitioner was further called for certificate verification and in this regard, there was a call letter issued by the respondent / Transport Corporation on 31.07.2007 and the import of the said call letter in entirety has been quoted above.11. As per the said call letter, the petitioner attended the certificate verification session on 14.08.2007 before the respondent, produced all the six certificates called for in this regard, along with demand draft for a sum of Rs.750/~, being the fee to be collected from the petitioner for training to be given by the authorities / respondent / Transport Corporation.12. However, at the time of certificate verification, it was found that, the date of birth of the petitioner, which actually was on 20.06.1967, as has been entered in the Transfer Certificate, however, has been wrongly entered in the SSLC as well as the Higher Secondary Mark Certificates, where it has been entered as 20.06.1965.13. This mistake occurred in entering the date of birth in these certificates unfortunately was not noticed by the petitioner. However when this was noticed by the respondent, at the time of certificate verification, they rejected the candidature of the petitioner.14. Thereafter, though the petitioner had filed this Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer in 2008, had subsequently made an attempt to the Educational Authorities to rectify the date of birth wrongly entered in the aforesaid certificates. The effort taken by the petitioner has yielded result only on 11.12.2009, where, the concerned authority ie., Director of Government Examination had issued a proceeding, by which, the wrong date of birth entry as 20.06.1965, entered into the SSLC and +2 mark statement has been rectified and corrected as 20.06.1967 in the original mark statement of SSLC and +2 of the petitioner and corrected mark statement has been given to the petitioner.15. However, in respect of these documents, the petitioner has filed a Miscellaneous Petition, seeking permission of this Court to file those documents, in the year 2010, subsequently after verification, it seems to have been numbered in the year 2013 and so far the same is pending along with this main Writ Petition.16. On perusal of these certificates, especially the SSLC and +2 certificates of the petitioner, which has now been corrected with the date of birth i.e., 20.06.1967, it is found that, though it is a small typographical or printing error, that has changed the carrier of the petitioner as he could not get the job, even though, he is fully eligible to get the same in the year 2007 itself. Fortunately or unfortunately, more than a decade has gone by as during these period, this Writ Petition has been pending before this Court. Now the petitioner has reached the age of 53 years and the superannuation age limit is 58 years, of the respondent / Transport Corporation. Therefore, it is the objection on the part of the respondent counsel that, for the five years period, that too beyond the upper age limit, even if the relaxation is given for communal category, to which, the petitioner belongs, even then, the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment.17. Though such an objection raised by the respondent side appears to be appealing, this Court feels that, for taking more than a decade to decide the Writ Petition due to the large pendency of litigations before this Court, the blame cannot be made against the petitioner, who rightly approached this Court in time.18. Moreover, there is no infirmity in respect of the qualification of the petitioner for the purpose of considering his candidature for the appointment to the post of Conductor. As pointed out earlier, even a small error taken place in our life time, that would change the very path and carrier of an individual and this is one of such classical case, where, the petitioner has been suffered for all these years, because of the mistake committed by the Education Department who wrongly entered the date of birth of the petitioner in the relevant certificates.19. On the part of the petitioner, he could have verified the said mistake entered in the certificate and corrected it then and there, however, he did not also notice the same, therefore he suffered all along.20. Be that as it may, now this Court feels that, after having waited for 13 long years to get justice, for no fault of him, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer, therefore, this Court feels that, a suitable direction to the respondent / Transport Corporation can be given to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Conductor, for which, the petitioner is having all other qualifications and the only discrepancy, as has been found out by the respondent was with regard to the date of birth as entered in the relevant certificates, since it has been rectified already, there can be no further impediment for the respondent / Transport Corporation to take the petitioner into their lap, as one of their employee to serve atleast for the rest of his service period, which is nothing but only for five years.21. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition with the following orders:“(i) That the respondent is hereby directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner, pursuant to the call letter issued by the respondent dated 31.07.2007 for the appointment to the post of Conductor at the respondent / Transport Corporation.(ii) While considering the same, the rectified certificates i.e., SSLC and +2 mark statements of the petitioner, where the date of birth of the petitioner has been correctly made, can be taken into account and accordingly, suitable orders shall be passed by the respondent / Transport Corporation for giving appointment to the petitioner as Conductor.(iii) It is made clear that, since it is a fresh appointment or his appointment, as per the extant Rule, the respondent / Transport Corporation can
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
give to the petitioner as Conductor, in this regard, no service benefits like seniority or enhanced pay can be claimed by the petitioner, but at the same time, what is the actual pay that is to be payable to a fresh entrant as Conductor in the respondent / Transport Corporation shall be paid to the petitioner, once he is appointed and started to work.(iv) On receipt of the copy of this order, the petitioner shall send his willingness by way of request, along with his documents including the corrected mark statements to the respondent / Transport Corporation, expressing his willingness to take the job, as a fresh entrant now, within a period of two weeks.(v) On receipt of such request from the petitioner with relevant documents, as indicated above, along with the copy of this order, the respondent / Transport Corporation shall do the needful, as directed above, within a period of four weeks thereafter.(vi) It is made clear that, the physical fitness of the petitioner can very well be verified by the respondent and in this regard, a certificate from the registered medical practicer working in Government hospital be obtained and produced by the petitioner along with the certificates mentioned above.“22. With these directions, the Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. However there shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.