IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2007 / 16TH ASWINA 1929 WP(C).No. 25010 of 2007(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ I.MUHAMMED ASSLAM, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IMMIGRATION WING, CALICUT AIR PORT, KARIPUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) 25010 of 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October 2007 JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 12.6.1954. But it was erroneously entered as 12.1.1953. By Ext.P1 order dated 21.7.2003, the date of birth was corrected in the school records as 12.6.1954. Apparently, it is thereafter that the petitioner made an application on 23.3.2007 before the Government for correction of date of birth in the service records. This was rejected by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P2 is a cryptic order. Thereafter the petitioner again submitted Ext.P3, a detailed representation before the Government. Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is clear that correction of date of birth in the school records does not ipso facto entitle a government servant for correction of date of birth in the service records. It cannot be said that the Government has acted illegally in declining to consider the petitioner’s request for correction of date of birth in the service records, made by means of an application dated 23.3.2007, about 10 months prior to the date on which the petitioner is due to retire as per the date of birth shown in W.P.(C)No.25010/2007 -2- the service records currently. I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P2. 4. The petitioner has sought for review of Ext.P2 vide Ext.P3 dated 6.8.2007. It is open to the petitioner to pursue the same and this judgment will not stand in the way of any such pursuit by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, JUDGE css/ W.P.(C)No.25010/2007 -2-