IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34654 of 2010(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N. GOPI, INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR (IB), O/O. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MINI CIVIL STATION, IDUKKI AT THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U., SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (D) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 3. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 4. JOINT COMMISSIONER-1, O/O.THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, VIKAS BHAVAN PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 34654 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Commercial Tax Inspector in the Commercial Taxes Department of the Government of Kerala who joined service on 09.03.1989 as Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner claims that, on 06.11.1993, the petitioner submitted an application for correction of date of birth, before the 1st respondent which was again re-presented after rectifying the defect in the same. That application was rejected by order dated 27.08.2010 which is produced as Ext.P11. The petitioner challenges the same in this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) call for records leading to Exts-P11 order and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or order found fit and proper. ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to alterations in his service records in pursuance of Ext-P9 and eligible for extension of service by 1 year.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. The reason for rejection is that, the application has been submitted beyond the time limit prescribed in the W.P.(C)No. 34654 of 2010 -2- Government order dated 30.12.1991. Admittedly, the petitioner entered service on 09.03.1989. The petitioner claims to have filed Ext.P6 application on 06.11.1993. According to the petitioner, his latter application i.e. Ext.P10 is only a follow up action and he had in fact submitted his original application in 1993 which is within five years of entering the service in 1989. According to him, as per the Government order dated 30.12.1991, the application for correction of date of birth has to be filed within five years from the date of entering service. The one year period mentioned in the Government order dated 30.02.1991, is in respect of persons who had already crossed five years of service on the date of issue of the notification. 4. After hearing I am of opinion that, if the respondents have received Ext.P6 application dated 06.11.1993, the application for correction of date of birth is in time. Ext.P11 does not appear to have considered the issue in that perspective. Therefore the 1st respondent is bound to consider that question. For that purpose, I quash Ext.P11 and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. But I hasten to add that, I have not considered the claim of the petitioner on merits and I have passed the judgment purely on the question as W.P.(C)No. 34654 of 2010 -3- to whether the application filed by the petitioner is beyond the time limit prescribed by the Government order dated 30.12.1991. If the respondents had in fact received Ext.P6 application dated 06.11.1993, the 1st respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner for correction of date of birth in accordance with the Government order dated 31.12.1991 and pass appropriate orders on merit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/