IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13257 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- S. ASOKAN, 'KAILAS', KURAVANKONAM KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER ADV. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 13257 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st May, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Executive Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board. He appeared for the S.S.L.C examination in the year 1974. In the S.S.L.C.Book, the date of birth of the petitioner is noted as 10.11.1953. The case of the petitioner is that his correct date of birth is 7.9.1954. Petitioner applied for correction of the date of birth. Since there was delay in filing the application, a prayer was made to condone the delay. 2. The Government rejected the application of the petitioner as per Ext.P7 order dated 4.3.2006, on the ground that the petitioner has crossed the age of fifty years on the date of application for correction of the date of birth. The petitioner has filed Ext.P8 Review Petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent has not disposed of Ext.P8 Review Petition. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained on the merits. He also submitted that the Government had filed an affidavit before this Court in W.P.(C) NO.13257 OF 2008 :: 2 :: another case stating that no application for correction of date of birth would be entertained after the prescribed period. 4. Since Ext.P8 is not disposed of, I am of the view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 Review Petition on the merits, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within three months. I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It is for the first respondent to consider the application on the merits. The Writ Petition is disposed of as indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/