IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32577 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.G.JOY, S/O. GEORGE, AGE 54 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KALIKKAVU MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, PAREKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. TH KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS.K.S.ANIL, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.32577 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as as Assistant Engineer in the Electrical Section of the KSEB. 2. According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 29/06/1956. But, however, in the service records, the date of birth was wrongly entered as 02/07/1955. This entry in the service records was based on the school records. It is stated that he made Exts.P5 & P6 applications for correction of his date of birth in the school records, and these applications were made way back in 1982. It is stated that these applications were not considered. Therefore, he made repeated applications thereafter. Finally his application was considered, and was rejected by Ext.P16 order dated 08/08/2008 stating that as he had crossed 50 years, it was impermissible to make corrections in view of Rule 3 of Chapter VI, KER. He sought a review of the decision. That was also rejected by Ext.P17 dated 06/09/2008. It is challenging these orders, this writ WP(C) No.32577/2009 -2- petition is filed. 3. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been making applications from 1982 onwards, and therefore, his application ought to be considered with reference to the Rules as prevailing then, and not in the light of Rule 3 of Chapter VI, KER, which was introduced in 1991. 4. However, fact remains that the application on which Ext.P16 order was passed is dated 25/06/2008, which is much after the Rule was introduced. That apart, even going by the pleadings, it can be seen that Exs.P5 & P6 allegedly made in 1982 were incomplete and that the petitioner had filed subsequent applications after 1982. Even according to the petitioner, first application made after 1982 is Ext.P8 dated 25/01/1994, which is also after the Rule was introduced. 5. No person has any vested claim to get his date of birth corrected, and if at all, an application is made, the same can be considered only in the light of the Rule prevailing as on the date of its consideration. In this case, the application which was considered WP(C) No.32577/2009 -3- is dated 25/06/2008, and if so, the Rule prevailing as on that date has to be applied. If so, the application could have been considered only in the light of Rule 3 of Chapter VI, KER, which prohibits correction of date of birth, if the applicant crossed 50 years of age. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg