IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17163 of 2011(R) ----------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- SARATH KUMAR.V.V, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, VATTOM VEETTIL HOUSE, 177 AD (PO), UNNIKULAM, KOZHIKODE-673587, NOW WORKING AS BENCH CLERK, CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,TRIVANDRUM-695001. 2. REGISTRAR, (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 17163 of 2011(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.6.1995 OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS. EXT.P2 : COPY OF ORDER NO.12094/C1/96/HOME DATED 18.6.1996 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 21/12/1999 TO THE MINISTER, HOME DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P4 : COPY OF ORDER NO. 30689/C1/2000/HOME DATED 22.7.2000. EXT.P5 : COPY OF G.O (RT) 143/2006/HOME DATED 19.01.2006 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4.1.2008. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 92178/L1/09/HOME DATED 11.5.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 17163 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Bench Clerk at the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kozhikode. He claims that his date of birth is 19.6.1958. But, in the service records, it is wrongly entered as 19.11.1957. The petitioner submitted an application for correction of date of birth in the service records. It has been rejected on the ground that the application has not been submitted within the period of limitation prescribed in the Government Order dated 30.12.1991. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that the application for correction of date of birth was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the Government Order. His only contention is that in similar cases, by Ext. P5, the Government has directed consideration of application filed beyond the limitation period. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In other writ petitions earlier I had frowned upon the practice of the Government in considering applications for date of birth beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the Government Order, in spite of Government Orders prohibiting entertaining of applications for condonation of delay under any circumstances. In fact, in earlier writ petitions, Ext. P5 itself was relied upon. At that time, I had specifically directed the Government not to entertain such applications any more and it W.P(C) No. 17163 of 2011 -: 2 :- has been observed that if the Government does it again, contrary to the Government Order dated 30.12.1991, it may be necessary to take action on the Government officials passing such orders. As such, I do not think that the petitioner can maintain a claim relying on Ext. P5 Government order, when, admittedly, the application was filed beyond the period of limitation and the Government Order dated 30.12.1991 proscribes condonation of delay in entertaining applications filed beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/