IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31785 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.RAVINDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (AUDIT), KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ----------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 31785 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this 31st day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies in the Co-operation Department. He entered service on 23-9-1981. His date of birth as per the service records is 14-11-1953 which corresponds to his date of birth in the school records. Long after the petitioner entered service, the Government issued G.O.(P) No.45/91/P&ARD dated 30-12-1991, laying down the conditions subject to which the date of birth entered in the service book of a Government employee can be corrected. One of the conditions is that, the Government servant will have to apply for correction of date of birth in the service records within a period of 5 years from the date of entry in service. In respect of Government employees in service as on 30-12-1991, the time limit stipulated is a period of one year from the date of the Government order. 2. After the Government order dated 30-12-1991 was issued, the petitioner moved the local authority within whose territorial limits he was born, to have his name entered in the birth register. Thereafter he obtained an extract from the birth register wherein the date of birth was entered as 30-11-1954. Armed with the extract from the birth register, he moved the Commissioner for Government Examinations for correction of the date of birth in the school records. The Commissioner W.P.(C) NO: 31785 of 2008 2 rejected the request made by the petitioner by Ext.P1 order dated 13-11-1998. The petitioner, there upon moved the State Government challenging Ext.P1 order. By Ext.P2 order dated 19-4-2000, the Government set aside Ext.P1 and allowed correction of the date of birth in the school records. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation before the Secretary to Government, Co-operation Department seeking correction of the date of birth in the service records. By Ext.P4 letter dated 29-5-2006, the said request was turned down on the ground that the application was made beyond the time limit of one year stipulated in G.O.(P)No.45/91/P&ARD dated 30-12-1991. 3. The petitioner thereafter moved the Registrar of Co- operative Societies who by Ext.P7 order dated 31-7-2008 rejected the petitioner's request. The petitioner thereafter filed Ext.P8 representation before the Hon’ble Minister for Co-operation. This writ petition is filed thereafter, challenging Exts.P4 and P5 orders and seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to alter the date of birth of the petitioner in the service records from 14-11-1953 to 30-11-1954. The petitioner relies on Exts.P5 and P6 orders passed by the State Government permitting correction of the date of birth of two other Government servants in their service records. W.P.(C) NO: 31785 of 2008 3 4. I have heard Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He contends that as the Government have not chosen to rely on the Government Order dated 30-12-1991 when it passed Exts.P5 and P6 orders, there is no justification in declining the petitioner's request. The learned counsel contended that the Government have the power to depart from or waive the stipulations in Government Order dated 30-12-1991 and that having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, the Government ought to granted the petitioner's request. 5. I have considered submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. G.O.(P)No.45/91/ARD dated 30-12-1991 was issued by the Government in view of the large number of applications filed by Government employees for correction of the date of birth in the service records. To bring about uniformity in the matter of consideration of applications for correction of the date of birth, the Government ordered that applications for correction of the date of birth in the service records should be made by Government employees after getting their date of birth in the school records corrected, within a period of 5 years from the date of their entry in service. As regards Government employees in service on 30-12-1991 the time limit prescribed is one year from 30-12-1991. It is also stipulated that applications for condonation W.P.(C) NO: 31785 of 2008 4 of delay and for entertainment of applications in relaxation of the condition regarding time limit will be summarily rejected. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner does not dispute the fact that he did not move the Government within the time limit of one year stipulated in the the Government order dated 30-12-1991. He admittedly moved the Government only on 25-6-2005, nearly 14 years after the Government order was issued. Ext.P2 discloses that the date of birth in the school records was corrected only on 19-4-2000. By then, the time limit of one year had expired. The petitioner, who did not apply within time was therefore not entitled to have the date of birth in the service records corrected to make it confirm the corrected entry in the school records. The application for correction of the date of birth in the service of records was therefore rightly rejected by the Government. 7. For yet another reason also, the challenge to Ext.P4 has to fail. Ext.P4 order was passed as early as on 29-5-2006. This writ petition is filed on 28-10-2008 nearly three years and 5 months thereafter. Therefore, on the ground of delay also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner attempts to explain away the delay in challenging Ext.P4, stating that he had moved the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Registrar declined his request on 31-7-2008. I find no merit in the said W.P.(C) NO: 31785 of 2008 5 contention. On the terms of Government order dated 30-12-1991, the only authority empowered and competent to permit correction of the date of birth in the service records is the State Government. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner moved the Registrar and that too belatedly in the year 2008, seeking a reconsideration of the Government decision is not a ground to excuse the delay in challenging Ext.P4. 8. The petitioner has yet another contention. The petitioner submits that by Ext.P5 order passed on 6-2-2003, the Government have departed from the stipulations in the Government order dated 30-12-1991 when it permitted correction of the date of birth in the service records of Smt.P.C.K.Nirmala an Upper Division Clerk in the General Education Department who applied for correction of date of birth on 15-9-2002. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P6 Government Order dated 31-3-2003 to submit that in the case of Sri.Rajan Nair, Principal, GHSS also, such correction was permitted. Ext.P6 discloses that the beneficiary of the said order had applied for correction of the date of birth originally on 25-11-1992, well within the time limit of one year stipulated in the Government Order dated 30-12-1991. Disposal of the said application was delayed due to diverse reasons and therefore the petitioner cannot rely on Ext.P6 to contend that he has been discriminated against. As far as Ext.P5 order is W.P.(C) NO: 31785 of 2008 6 concerned, as the said order is one passed in violation of the stipulations in the Government Order dated 30-12-1991, the petitioner cannot rely on it as a precedent. In my considered opinion this Court cannot in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India direct the Government to disregard its own orders which are applicable to all Government employees. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE