“If an employee seeks an alteration of his date of birth on the eve of his retirement, then a court of law must be doubly careful and cautious in accepting the request, as the attitude or tendency among the employees to raise such a plea comes only at the fag end of their career.
“Therefore, such a plea for alteration at the eleventh hour should not be entertained because of the possible wide ranging ramifications and repercussion to follow, which may result in compounding the problem in a manifold ways,” said a division bench comprising Justices M Venugopal and S Baskaran while dismissing the review application on July 24.
The application was filed by one Jeyaratnakumar to review a division bench order which declined to effect changes in records related to his date of birth.
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Department of Prosecutions by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in 1995 on the basis of his date of birth of June 1, 1960.
Facing superannuation, he moved the High Court to change his date of birth as February 9, 1961.
As the single judge had refused, he approached a division bench, which in 2008 upheld the single judge’s order.
The petitioner was given the appointment only on the basis of his year of birth as 1960. Otherwise, his candidature would have been rejected on ground of shortage of age, the bench had pointed out.
The petitioner filed the present review application challenging the bench’s order nearly after nine years.
Dismissing it too, Justice Venugopal, who wrote the order for the bench, said “such a prayer at the fag end of a person’s career is per se not to be entertained, as the same might affect the promotions of others, who are yearning for years below him and it would cause undoubtedly an irreparable injury and hardship to them.”
“Moreover, the power of review is not to be confused with an appellate one. If the applicant is aggrieved by the finding of the court, the remedy is not review,” the bench said.
Under the guise of review, the court would not re-hear the parties on point of law afresh, the bench said and dismissed the plea.