IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 636 of 2010(S) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23620/2009 Dated 17/12/2009 .................. PETITIONER / PETITIONER : -------------------------------------- A.K.CHANDRIKA, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O.KUTTAPPAN, ANANDA MANDIRAM, NOORANADU PO, JOINT REGISTRAR/ADMINISTRATE MANAGER KERALA RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN ON DEPUTATION (RETIRED) BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT / 2ND RESPONDENT : -------------------------------------------------- H.P.M. MOHAMMED HANISH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAUPRAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJ THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- Contempt Case(C)No.636 Of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 JUDGMENT This Contempt of Court Case is filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the directions issued in Annexure-I judgment. The Writ Appeal against the said judgment and the Special Leave Petition have also gone against the State and other functionaries. Thereafter, purported to be in compliance of the findings, an order was passed as per Annexure-A4 by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out on the last occasion that various observations in the said order are totally against the findings rendered by this Court in Annexure-I judgment and that prima facie the act of the respondent will amount to Contempt of this Court. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions in the matter. 2. Today, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Annexure-A4 order has been withdrawn and a fresh order has been passed by the respondent as per Order No.K.Dis/EX.B2/43325/2009/CGE/ Dated 28.9.2010. The Con.Case(C)No.636/10 -2- operative portion of the order reads as follows: “ After considering the relevant statutory provision contained in this office, this office has rejected the request of the petitioner to correct the Date of birth on the ground that the statutory provisions as contained in Chapter VI Rule 5 of KEA &R cannot be superseded vide 14th reference cited. Subsequently, in case No.636/2010 Contempt Case(C) dated 23.9.2010, the Hon'ble High Court has directed the respondents to withdraw the order dated 4.8.2010 issued from the Commissioner for Government Examinations and pass a revised order in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble High Court dated 17.12.2009. In compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, the Date of Birth of Smt.A.K.Chandrika is hereby corrected from 24.12.1954 to 14.1.1957 in her SSLC Book.” In that view of the matter, as the date of birth of the petitioner has been corrected, the same amounts to compliance with the directions issued by this Court. Therefore, the Contempt of Court Case is closed, recording the same. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn