Madras HC Reinstates College Gardener Fired Over DOB Mismatch: Both Records Disclosed, Mismatch Alone Didn’t Prove Fraud

The petitioner was initially engaged as a Clerk by the third respondent college in 2012 and appointed as a Gardener against a sanctioned vacancy from 10 June 2013. Her appointment was approved in 2019 following litigation.

In 2021, the College removed her after alleging that she had secured appointment by relying on a bogus birth certificate: her school records, PAN and Aadhaar cards stated her date of birth as 15 March 1983, while her municipal birth certificate stated 19 June 1984.

The petitioner maintained that she had disclosed both records, had sought correction of her school records, and was denied a proper opportunity to participate in the enquiry. She challenged the removal under Article 226.

The respondents opposed the petition, alleging suppression and also asserting that an alternative appeal was available.

Under Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, an alternative remedy is ordinarily a rule of self-restraint, not a bar to Article 226 jurisdiction; exceptions include violations of natural justice.

Fraud or suppression may vitiate an appointment, but the allegation must be established; A. Sivakumar v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BSNL concerned a document shown on verification to be unissued by the purported authority and was distinguished on that basis.

Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh recognises the relevance of an appointee’s bona fides and length of service where an appointment is erroneous but fraud is not attributable to the appointee.

The Court also treated a birth extract from local-body records as a recognised basis for date of birth and held that a discrepancy with school records, without proof of falsity, does not itself establish fraud.

The Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and its Rules governed the College; the respondents identified no provision imposing a below-30 age limit for the Gardener post.

The Court declined to relegate the petitioner to an alternative remedy because the respondents did not identify the applicable appeal provision, the petition had been pending for over three years, and a natural-justice challenge was raised.

On the merits, the College’s own case showed that it had received both the school mark sheet and municipal birth certificate before appointment and approval; the petitioner’s efforts to correct her school records were also not specifically denied.

No evidence showed that the Municipality had disowned the certificate, that its birth-register entry was false, or that the certificate had been fabricated.

The respondents also failed to establish an applicable age limit or explain how the later date of birth gave the petitioner an eligibility advantage; the report of the Joint Director’s enquiry was not produced.

The discrepancy therefore did not prove fraud or suppression, and the eight-year-delayed removal could not be sustained.

It directed the College to reinstate the petitioner as Gardener within eight weeks and the respondents to provide continuity of service and consequential monetary and service benefits, disbursing the monetary benefits within twelve weeks.

The Court did not determine the petitioner’s correct date of birth; the competent authority must decide the date to be entered in her service record in accordance with law, after notice to her.