IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18152 of 2008(J) PETITIONER: ------------ VIJAYAN THURUTHI, S/O. RAGHAVAN KANOTH PUTHEN THURUTHI HOUSE ANCHARAKANDY, PALAYAM P.O,. MEMBA. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 18152 OF 2008 J -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th June, 2008 JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 23.2.1956, but in the S.S.L.C.Book, his date of birth is entered as 19.11.1953. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 application for correction of the date of birth. Ext.P2 application was submitted on 28.8.2001. The Commissioner for Government Examinations, Thiruvananthapuram passed Ext.P4 order dated 20.2.2004 rejecting the application. Against Ext.P4 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal dated 26.3.2008 before the first respondent. An application was also filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The first respondent rejected the appeal by Ext.P7 order dated 23.4.2008, on the ground that the order was passed by the Commissioner on 20.2.2004 but the appeal was filed only on 20.3.2008 and that the appeal is time barred. A period of 30 days is provided for filing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The only reason stated in Ext.P6 application for condoning the delay is that he had no knowledge that an appeal could be preferred before the Government against the order of the Commissioner. It is further stated in Ext.P6 application that as per the service records, he has to retire from service on 30.11.2008. W.P.(C) NO.18152 OF 2008 J :: 2 :: 2. I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P7 order. No acceptable grounds are made out for condoning the delay of more than four years in filing the appeal before the first respondent. The delay is not properly explained in Ext.P6. The petitioner has to retire from service on 30.11.2008 going by the date of birth in the service records. Even if the date of birth in the S.S.L.C.Book is corrected that cannot be a ground for correcting the date of birth entered in the service records, going by the decision of the Supreme Court in that regard. 3. WW On consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by admitting the Writ Petition. Ext.P7 order is legal and valid. No grounds are made out for interference. The Writ Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/