IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38407 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SUDHEER.K, AGED 32 YEARS,CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PAZHUKULAM PO, ADOOR VIA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION (G) DEPARTMENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.38407 Of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exhibit P4 order passed by the Government which was passed in an application to condone the delay in submitting an application for correction of date of birth. 2. The reason stated in Exhibit P4 order is that if the date of birth is corrected as 11.4.1978, the petitioner will be an underaged student at the time of admission to Standard I, which is against the rules in KER. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue that is raised before the Government is only with regard to the condonation of delay in filing the application for correction of entry in the SSLC book. Therefore, it was not open for the Government to reject the matter on the merits of the application for correction of date of birth itself. It is further pointed out that the reasoning adopted in the order cannot be supported in the light of a binding decision of this court in Chandrika v. State of W.P.(C)No.38407/10 -2- Kerala (2010(1) KLT 223). Therein, this court followed the dictum laid down in K.K.Nandakumaran v. Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations, Trivandrum (1976 KLN page 178 C.No.158). It was held thus in paragraph 17 in Chandrika's case(supra): “It is not the law that when a person's date of birth is allowed to be corrected, the advantage obtained by the said person based on the irregular entry, has to be forfeited. What is provided under the relevant rule is an opportunity to correct the date of birth in the school records on the basis of cogent materials which, if accepted, would lead to the conclusion that the original entry has to be corrected. Going by Rule 3 of Chapter VI K.E.R. a facility has been provided to correct the date of birth in the Admission Register and sub-rule (1A) also provides for a facility for correcting the date of birth in school records by the Commissioner of Government Examinations. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 is important. It provides that “if the authority referred to in sub-rule (1) is satisfied after necessary enquiries that the change applied for could be granted, he will issue an order to make the alteration........” Therefore, the enquiry is confined to the question whether the original entry requires alteration, in the light of the materials made available by the applicant. If the applicant can conclusively prove that the original entry does not tally with the correct date of birth, based on sufficient materials, W.P.(C)No.38407/10 -3- power is given to the authority to order an alteration. It is not the law, therefore, that the advantage obtained by the irregular entry, if at all anything is there, will be detrimental to the applicant. The prohibition contained in Rule 5 of Chapter VI have to be understood in the light of the above fact.” The above judgment has been confirmed in Writ Appeal and the SLP filed by the State has also been dismissed. The reasons stated in Exhibit P4 cannot therefore be sustained at all. The Writ Petition is therefore allowed. Exhibit P4 is quashed. The application for condonation of delay will therefore be considered afresh and appropriate orders will be passed within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the Writ Petition along with a copy of the judgment for compliance. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn