IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1661 of 2009(W) PETITIONER: S.NAZEER, S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED RAVUTHER AGED 40 YEARS, MULAKUVILA PADINJATTAM KIZHAKKEMURIYIL, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. COMMISSIONER OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS COMMISSIONERATE OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS SOORANAD NORTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SOORANAD NORTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 1661 OF 2009 W ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for correction of date of birth in the S.S.L.C. Book, after condoning the delay in filing the application. Petitioner stated that the date of birth entered in the S.S.L.C.Book is 1.5.1967 while his actual date of birth is 5.9.1968. In Ext.P4 it is stated that his parents are illiterate and that he was born in a poor family. Because of the ignorance of the parents, the birth of the petitioner was not reported to the registering authority. Therefore, there is no birth certificate so as to prove the actual date of birth of the petitioner. At the time of admission in the school, to facilitate admission, the date of birth was shown as 1.5.1967 because at that time the petitioner was aged only four years. 2. The first respondent issued Ext.P5 order dated 7.8.2008, directing the petitioner to explain the reason for condoning the delay and the necessity for correcting the date of birth, after producing attested copies of the S.S.L.C.Book and the birth certificate. It is also stated in Ext.P5 that the service details of the petitioner should be submitted through the superior officers concerned. Nowhere in the Writ Petition it is W.P.(C) NO.1661 OF 2009 W :: 2 :: stated whether the petitioner is employed or whether he is a person who does not have any job or avocation. Ext.P6 order dated 28.8.2008 was passed by the first respondent rejecting the application. It would appear that the petitioner filed an application for review and that was also rejected as per Ext.P7 order dated 5.11.2008. 3. The only reason stated in Ext.P6 is that the application could not be entertained in view of the non-production of the birth certificate. The petitioner produced Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Secretary and Registrar of Birth and Death, Sooranad, showing that birth of the petitioner was not registered. It is also stated in Ext.P1 that registration records prior to the year 1971 are not available in the office. The petitioner also produced Ext.P2 certificate issued by the Village Officer stating that the petitioner, who is the eldest among the eight children of Shahul Hameed Rawther and Subaida Beevi, was born on 5.9.1968. Ext.P2 certificate was issued on the basis of the enquiry alleged to have been made by the Village Officer. Normally, a certificate like Ext.P2 cannot be relied on to arrive at a conclusion as to correct the date of birth. Ext.P3 is the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the application submitted by the mother of the petitioner. 4. The age and date of birth of the eight children of the parents of W.P.(C) NO.1661 OF 2009 W :: 3 :: the petitioner are not furnished either in the Writ Petition or in the application submitted by the petitioner or in any of the representations submitted by him. The Village Officer's certificate also does not indicate the same. The Revenue Divisional Officer also has not reported about the same. Naturally, the first respondent could not be expected to arrive at a finding on that point. The correct details are not furnished by the petitioner. Though, strictly speaking, it cannot be said that the rejection of the application was quite improper, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P6 order only on the ground that it is a non-speaking order. It is also liable to be set aside on the ground that non-submission of the birth certificate alone should not be a ground for rejection of the application. 5. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that Exts.P1 and P3 would indicate that the petitioner belongs to Kollam District while the Writ Petition shows that he belongs to Alappuzha District. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the Village is correctly shown in the Writ Petition, but by mistake, the District was shown as Alappuzha instead of Kollam. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: W.P.(C) NO.1661 OF 2009 W :: 4 :: a) Ext.P6 order dated 28.8.2008 and Ext.P7 order dated 5.11.2008 are quashed. The first respondent shall consider the application for correction of date of birth and the prayer for condonation of delay afresh. b) The petitioner is free to produce such other documents and materials before the first respondent within a period of one month from today. c) The petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard by the first respondent. d) The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition before the first respondent. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/