IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35825 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V.R. MOHANAN NAIR, VANIYAMPRAMABIL MANDIRAM.P.O, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DT. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. HEADMASTER, M.S HIGH SCHOOL, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. COMMISSIONER OF EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 35825 OF 2008 (M) ==================== Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 and Rule 3 of Chapter VI KER in so far as 50 years has been fixed as the upper age for effecting correction in the SSLC Book. Petitioner submits that his correct date of birth is 16/2/1957, but it is shown as 20/11/55 in the SSLC Book. Ext.P2 is stated to be his birth certificate. According to the petitioner, erroneous date of birth happened to be incorporated in the passport also and that for getting the same corrected, he applied to get the date of birth mentioned in the SSLC Book corrected. It is that application, which resulted in Ext.P3, rejecting the same. The reason stated in Ext.P3 is that since the petitioner has crossed 50 years, it is not possible to consider his request in view of Rule 3 of Chapter VI K.E.R. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purpose of his application was to get the date of birth in the passport corrected and that the intention of the rule is to place a restriction on the requests for getting entries in the service book corrected at the fag end of the service. He also says that he does not intend to get any correction in the service book. On this basis, it is contended that the fixation of upper age limit of WPC 35825/08 :2 : 50 years in the rule is arbitrary and is liable to be struck off. 3. I do not find anything illegal with the Rules. The validity of the rule cannot depend upon the ultimate purpose of the applicant. The rule as it now stands provides a long time for the applicants to approach the authorities for getting the date of birth in the SSLC Book corrected. It is only for maintaining a certainty and outer time limit in the matter of correction of date of birth in the SSLC Book that outer time limit has been fixed. This is a matter, which is entirely within the province of the rule making authority and this Court will not be justified in sitting in judgment over the same. Writ petition merits only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp