IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 12967 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.MANI, S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, SREESYLAM, BNC CORNER, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR-2. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (G) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. MR.V.MANU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.12967/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER ABSTRACT DATED 21/02/2005 ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS, GEMMA'S CONVENT U.P. SCHOOL, MANAKODY.P.O., VELUTHR, THRUSSUR. P2 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK. P3 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTER H.S.ARIMBUR TO THE HEADMASTER GOVT.UP SCHOOL, ARMBUR. P4 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 04/08/1968 FROM THE HEADMASTER GOVT.UP SCHOOL TO THE HEADMISTRESS, ST.GEMMA'S CUPS SEEKING FOR CORRECTION OF THE T.C. P5 : COPY OF THE CORRECTED TRANSFER CERTIFICTE NO.44/64 ISSUED BY the HEADMISTRESS, H.S.ARIMBUR. P6 : COPY OF APPLICATION NO.C-.137/04-05 DATED03/03/05. P7 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21/02/05. P8 : COPY OF ORDER NO.D3-6078/2005 K.DIS DATED 02/09/2005. P9 : COPY OF ORDER NO.17449/G2/05/GLEdn. DATED 08/04/2005. P10 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.1710/2006. P11 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 05/07/2006. P12 : COPY OF LETTER NO.59028/G2/06/G.Ed DATED 10/11/06 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P13 : COPY OF REPRESEMTATOPM DATED 22/12/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDEN. P14 : COPY OF LETTER NO.74308/G2/06/G.Edn. DATED 22/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P15 : COPY OF GO(Rt.)NO.5719/07/G.Edn. DATED THIRUVNANTHAPURAM, 15/12/2007. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.12967 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P15 order passed by the respondent rejecting the application made by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth, which is now entered as 29/02/1950 instead of 29/02/1952. 2. The petitioner submits that his Date of Birth is 29/02/1952, which was also entered in the admission register of St.Gemma's CUP School, Manakody. Ext.P1 is the extract of the admission register. However, according to him, at the time when he was admitted in the High School, a mistake was committed and his Date of Birth was wrongly entered as 29/02/1950. When he was issued SSLC book, that also contained the wrong date 29/02/1950. Ext.P2 is the extract of the SSLC book. Referring to Exts.P3 to P6, the petitioner submits that the School authorities themselves have accepted that the date 29/02/1950 as a mistake, and therefore sought for correction of the Date of Birth. However, nothing WP(C) No.12967/2008 -2- materialized, as a result of which, though belatedly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application for correction of his Date of Birth. Meantime, the petitioner also made an attempt to register his birth with the corrected Date of Birth. It is stated that such a request made was also rejected by Ext.P8 order on the ground that the Date of Birth entered in the SSLC Book was an erroneous one. 3. Long thereafter by Ext.P9, the respondent rejected the petitioner’s request for correction of his Date of Birth on the ground of delay. That order was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.1710/2006. Although this Court did not interfere with Ext.P9, still this Court left it open to the petitioner to pursue his request, invoking its powers under Rule 3 of Chapter I, K.E.R., authorizing the Government to exempt rigour of the Rules. Accordingly, the petitioner again submitted Ext.P11 request before the respondent. Although that was rejected by Ext.P12, the petitioner again pursued the matter. The revision was also rejected by Ext.P5. 4. At that stage, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.23051/2007. In that writ petition, this Court passed order directing the Government to invoke its powers under Rule 3, Chapter I, KER and pass appropriate orders on the request of WP(C) No.12967/2008 -3- the petitioner. The matter was considered and Ext.P15 order was passed again rejecting the request. The relevant portion of Ext.P15 reads as under:- “In this case the petitioner has not submitted any clear proof to show that his date of birth is 29/2/1952. He has not registered the date of birth so far. In the admission register of St.Gemma's GUPS Manakody, the Date of Birth of the petitioner is noted as 29/2/1952. In the T C Issued from Arimpur High School the date of birth is seen corrected as 29/2/1952. Apparently it is an unauthorised correction without the permission of the District Educational Officer concerned. It is a matter to be enquired by police as to how he managed to correct the TC unauthorisedly. He has not produced the extract of the admission register of the school in which he studied for SSLC. It is to be presumed that it would be against his claim. But in the SSLC Book it is noted as 29/2/1950. The date of birth entry in school records/SSLC can be corrected only based on the birth certificate issued by the Registering Authority. The date of birth of the petitioner has not been registered so far. The only proof in support of his present claim is the school admission register. Entry in the school register cannot be taken in to account as a valid proof for correcting the date of birth in SSLC Book. Since the petitioner has failed to establish his claim by producing the birth certificate, Government cannot admit his claim on any account and hence rejected.” It is challenging Ext.P15, this writ petition has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that because of Ext.P1 and interim order referred to above, the WP(C) No.12967/2008 -4- Government was obliged to consider the request of the petitioner on merits. It is also his contention that the reasons stated in Ext.P15 to reject the request are all unsustainable. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that the request was highly belated and even inspite of the fact that the delay was to be condoned because of the orders and judgments of this Court, still the petitioner miserably failed in establishing that his correct Date of Birth is 29/02/1952. He therefore submitted that there is nothing erroneous in Ext.P15 warranting to be interfered by this Court. 7. I have considered the submissions made. 8. Going by the Date of Birth as entered in the SSLC Book of the petitioner, his Date of Birth is 29/02/1950. The year 1950 is not a leap year, and if so February of that year could not had 29 days. If that be so, the Date of Birth entered in the SSLC Book is patently erroneous. Then, the question is whether the application made by the petitioner is a belated one. That argument also cannot be held against the petitioner for the reason that this Court has already directed the respondent to invoke their powers under Rule 3, Chapter I KER and therefore, the request made by the petitioner WP(C) No.12967/2008 -5- even at this distance of time is liable to be entertained and considered on merits. 9. The surviving question is whether the respondent was justified in holding that the petitioner failed in producing satisfactory documents supporting his claim. One of the reasons stated in Ext.P15 is that the petitioner has not registered his birth so far. As already stated, the petitioner made an application to get his birth registered. However, by Ext.P8, that was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the ground that there is a contradiction between the dates entered in the SSLC Book and other documents. Therefore, the mistake, which is now sought to be corrected, is the reason for rejecting the petitioner’s application for registration of his birth. The other reason stated in Ext.P15 is that in the Transfer Certificate issued by St.Gemma's CUP School, Manakody, the date entered is 29/02/1952, which was an unauthorized correction effected without the permission of the Educational Authorities. Ext.P15 order does not disclose the basis of such an inference that the date 29/02/1952 is an unauthorized correction. On the otherhand, the records produced by the petitioner, viz., Exts.P3, P4 & P5, itself show that the School WP(C) No.12967/2008 -6- Authorities themselves had recognized 29/02/1952 as the Date of Birth of the petitioner and that 29/02/1950 was sightly accepted as an erroneous one. It was on that basis the date 29/02/1952 was entered in the school records, which is seen in Ext.P1 admission register as well. Therefore the conclusion that there was an unauthorized correction is unwarranted. It is further pointed out that the petitioner did not produce the extract of the admission register of the School, where he studied up to SSLC. The petitioner submits that even if such a document was produced, the petitioner would not have got any advantage for the reason that the School record contained the date 29/02/1950. 10. Facts being as above, I am satisfied that the respondent has acted erroneously in rejecting the request of the petitioner. The petitioner had produced all available documents, which substantiate his claims. That apart, the petitioner also submits that based on the erroneous Date of Birth he continued in Central Government service and on attaining the age of 60, he was superannuated from service. It is stated that in view of the erroneous Date of Birth, he is not in a position to obtain a Passport. It is for such purposes alone, he wants to get his Date of Birth corrected, even at this belated stage. WP(C) No.12967/2008 -7- In the light of the above, I dispose of this writ petition quashing Ext.P15 and directing the respondent to correct the Date of Birth of the petitioner as 29/02/1952. However, it is made clear that this judgment will not be used by the petitioner for any claim towards either the Government of Kerala or Government of India, nor can the petitioner claim reinstatement or continuity of employment or other benefits on this basis. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg