IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 2592 of 2007 ------ --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18534/2007 Dated 18/06/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATION, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MEERA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- M.C. BINCY, W/O. MATHEW A.GEORGE, RESIDING AT MALAYALAM PARAMBIL, VARANAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 2592 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent, seeking to have the date of birth corrected as 19th July, 1977, which happened to be recorded in the school register as 30th May, 1977. The Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the impugned orders, (Exhibits P8, P10 and P12) and directing the District Educational Officer concerned (who is not a party to the proceedings), the competent authority, to consider the matter for granting the benefit of exemption as to the minimum age for admission in the School in terms of Exhibit P13 Government Order in this regard. 2. The case projected by the writ petitioner is as follows: The writ petitioner was stated as born on 19th July, 1977, as borne by Exhibit P4 birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. However, the date of birth of the writ petitioner was happened to be recorded in the school register as 30th May, 1977, WA.2592/07 2 as mentioned above. The writ petitioner, sought to have the same corrected by approaching the concerned authorities, producing the relevant documents. The second respondent passed Exhibit P8 order, rejecting the claim, which was followed by Exhibit P10 order passed by the Government. The matter was however sought to be readjudicated by the writ petitioner by filing a representation before the Government, wherein interference was declined as per Exhibit P12, which made her to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition. 3. During the course of hearing of the Writ Petition, it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, that the course adopted by the concerned respondent was not correct and proper and that the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner before the Government was simply rejected as time barred. Reliance was sought to be placed on Exhibit P13 Government Order whereby power is vested with the concerned District Educational Officer, to grant exemption with regard to the age of the pupils for pursuing the studies in Class-I to X, covered by the relevant provisions under Rule 5(1) of Chapter VI of KER stipulating that the minimum age for admission to Class I is five years. The State is stated as WA.2592/07 3 aggrieved of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge directing the District Educational Officer to consider the matter afresh in the light of Exhibit P13. 4. The Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the District Educational Officer was not a party to the proceedings and as such, the direction given is not correct or sustainable. It is also stated that, the idea of the writ petitioner might be to have some other benefits in connection with her employment, which however was not revealed in the Writ Petition. 5. Going by the materials on record, this Court finds that the grounds stated in the appeal do not hold much water. The fact that the apprehension expressed by the appellants cannot be correct, in view of the relevant amendment to the Service Rules with respect to the employment under the State, whereby the State Government employees are permitted to continue upto 31st March of the next year, in the relevant cases. That apart, cases cannot be decided on doubts, surmises and conjunctures as expressed by the appellants. WA.2592/07 4 In the above circumstances, the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs