IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 15835 of 2004(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- G.SAHEETHA, RESIDING AT SHANU MANZIL, VALMUTTY, ANICODE, CHITUR, PALAKKAD (INSPECTOR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PALAKKAD) BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SMT.G.GEETHISHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION (G) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU WP(C).No. 15835 of 2004(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF RELATIONSHIP ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHITTUR DTD 28/09/2002. P2 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DTD 30/03/2001. P3 : COPY OF THE ADMISSION EXTRACT ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS OF GOVERNMENT VICTORIA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, CHITTUR DTD 28/01/1986. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.EX.B5-1714/2001 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DTD 12/12/2001. P5 : COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE DTD 04/01/1986. P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(Rt) NO.266/2003/G.Edn. DTD 18/01/2003. P7 : COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 10/04/2003. P8 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.29247/G2/2003/G.Edn. DTD 16/09/2003. P9 : COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY DTD 14/12/2009. P10: COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE SON OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY DTD 05/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE. STU ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15835 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P4, P6 and P8 orders passed by respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for correction of her date of birth in the S.S.L.C book. At the time when the writ petition was filed, petitioner was working as an inspector in a co-operative society at Palakkad. According to the petitioner her date of birth is 11.6.1960. Ext.P5 birth certificate also supports this contention. However in the S.S.L.C. Book her date of birth is recorded as 17.7.1958. Relying on Ext.P5 birth certificate, petitioner made an application to the 2nd respondent for correction of her date of birth as 11.6.1960. This application made on 23.9.1999, was considered by the 2nd respondent. However, the request of the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P4 order and the reasoning of the 2nd respondent contained in Ext.P4, W.P.(C) No. 15835 OF 2004 :2 : reads thus; “5.The applicant has furnished 2 birth certificates and non registration of birth certificate for the 6 others. As per the affidavit furnished the applicant is the 5th child born to her parents. On verification of the birth register it is revealed that she is the 5th child and the 4th living child born to Sri.Gulam Rasul Sahib and Smt. Isha Beevi of house No.1/174. Age of mother at the time of confinement is 32. The name of the child Saheetha is entered on 04-01-1986 as per order No.5358/85. 6. As per affidavit Smt. Kamila with date of birth 16-02-1965 is the 7th child. On verification of the birth register it is found that she is the 4th child and 3rd living child to the parents Sri.Gulam Rasul and Smt. Ishumma of house No. 1-137 Kacheri Nadu, Chittur. Age of mother at the time of confinement is recorded as 28. No name is given to the child. W.P.(C) No. 15835 OF 2004 :3 : 7. Though there is similarity in the name of parents, it cannot be confirmed that the parent age of the two children are the same as the vast difference of age of mother at the time of confinement, variation of orders of birth, address etc.. It is a fact that the mother who gave birth to her 5th child on 11- 06-1960 cannot deliver her 4th child on 16- 02-1965. Her age also cannot decrease from 32 to 28. Further the birth certificate of the child born on 16-02-1965 cannot be treated as the birth of Smt. Kamila whose date of birth is 15-04-1964 as per school records. 8. The applicant has not produced birth certificate in respect of her siblings obtained from the registrar of the locality where the birth events actually occurred. In the absence of birth certificates a comparative study could not be made. The applicant should have taken advantage of the provisions under section 13(3) of the registration of birth and Deaths Act 1969 for belated registration of the birth events and W.P.(C) No. 15835 OF 2004 :4 : birth certificate should have been produced. 9. The applicant has not produced the extract of admission register for the Std. I to VII inspite of repeated requests. Hence her date of admission, age at the time of admission to Std. I and the period spent for completing L.P. and U.P. classes are not known. 10. The applicant has not produced corroborative records to prove her claim beyond doubt. So her request for correction of date of birth from 17-07-1958 to 11-06- 1960 is rejected. 11. This orders is issued in terms of provisions contained in rule 3 chapter VI KER.” 2. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent that was also rejected by Ext.P6 order, confirming Ext.P4. Thereupon the petitioner filed an application for reviewing Ext.P6. That request of the petitioner was also rejected by Ext.P8. It is W.P.(C) No. 15835 OF 2004 :5 : in these circumstances this writ petition has been filed. 3. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that Ext.P5 certificate contains her date of birth as 11.6.1960. On this basis counsel contends that as far as the date of birth of the petitioner is concerned, the date of birth recorded in Ext.P5 is conclusive and therefore the request for correction of the date of birth should have been allowed accepting Ext.P5. 4. However the learned Government Pleader would submit that Ext.P4 order itself gives the reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner. It is stated that the birth certificate and the affidavit filed by the petitioner were contradictory and therefore in the absence of any corroborative evidence the request had to be rejected. 5. Considering the submissions made by both the sides I am inclined to think that the matter needs reexamination. The request of the petitioner for correction W.P.(C) No. 15835 OF 2004 :6 : of the date of birth certificate was supported by Ext.P5 certificate issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths. Though the certificate was also produced by the petitioner along with other documents, Ext.P4 order does not state why the said document was not acted upon. On the other hand reference has been made to extract of the Birth register and the affidavit filed by the petitioner and finding that these documents do not corroborate the case of the petitioner for correction of her date of birth, the request of the petitioner for correction of her date of birth was rejected. This is clearly erroneous. 6. Therefore I quash Ext.P4 and Exts.P6 and P8 and direct that the 2nd respondent will reconsider the application made by the petitioner for correction of her date of birth, duly adverting to Ext.P5 birth certificate and orders thereon on shall be passed with notice to the petitioner. This shall be done at any rate within 8 weeks of W.P.(C) No. 15835 OF 2004 :7 : production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-