IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 16146 of 2009(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- RADHAMANI AMMA K.G., POLACHIRAPUTHENPURACKAL, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY MR.T.C.SURESH MENON, ADVOCATE. MR.JIBU P THOMAS, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR EXAMINATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR. BINOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.16146/2009 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE WHICH REVEALED THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER'S DATE OF BIRTH WAS 14.04.1955, ISSUED BY THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY DTD. 16.9.99. EXT. P2 : COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY R2 DTD. 19.11.03. EXT. P3 : COPY OF REQUEST MADE BY PETITIONER TO RECONSIDER THE ORDER OF R2 DTD. 19.4.04. EXT. P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 22.12.08 SENT BY PETITIONER TO R1. EXT. P5 : COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY R1 DTD. 19.2.09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16146 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Exhibits P2 and P5 orders whereby the request for correction of date of birth has been rejected, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is working as Confidential Assistant in the CDRF, Kottayam. Her date of birth was wrongly entered in the school records as 23.04.1954 instead of 14.04.1955, according to the petitioner. The crucial document produced by the petitioner in support of the correct date of birth is Exhibit P1, a true copy of the Birth Certificate issued by the Kottayam Municipality. In Exhibit P1, the date of birth is shown as 14.04.1955. 3. Even though the application for correction of date of birth was considered by the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations, the same was rejected by Exhibit P2 for various reasons. Exhibit P2 shows that the petitioner had produced five documents along with the application including Exhibit P1. W.P.(C) No.16146/2009 2 4. The appeal filed by the petitioner, Exhibit P3, was rejected by the Government mainly for the reason that it is belated and that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence/supporting materials to reconsider her request for date of birth correction. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by the Government that the appeal is belated is not correct since the period of filing the appeal is obviously counted from the date of Exhibit P2 and not from the date of service of Exhibit P2. If the date of receipt of Exhibit P2 is considered, there will not be any delay in filing the appeal. It is further pointed out that the finding that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to reconsider her application for correction of date of birth is also not sustainable. Exhibit P1, copy of the Birth Certificate issued by the Municipality, itself being an important document, reference ought to have been made to the same. Since the date of birth is registered in the W.P.(C) No.16146/2009 3 Municipality at the relevant point of time, it is conclusive as regards the correctness of the said date, submitted the learned counsel. 7. Exhibit P2 order is passed by the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations on 19.11.2003. Going by the memorandum of appeal, the appeal is dated 19.04.2004. Obviously, while rejecting the appeal, it is treated as belated for the reason that the appeal is filed only on 19.04.2004 against the order dated 19.11.2003. But, there is nothing to show that Exhibit P2 order was communicated to the petitioner on the same day namely, 19.11.2003. The time for filing the appeal will run only from the date of receipt of copy of the order. That aspect has not been examined in Exhibit P5. Therefore, the reason that the appeal is belated cannot be sustained obviously. 8. The second reason that no supporting materials have been produced by the petitioner is also not correct in the light of the fact that even in Exhibit P2 order passed by the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations, apart from the application filed by the petitioner, five documents and an enquiry W.P.(C) No.16146/2009 4 report have been mentioned. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that the Government has held incorrectly that no documents were produced. I find force in the said submission. Therefore, Exhibit P5 is quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to re-examine Exhibit P3 in the light of the findings contained above within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appropriate orders shall be passed after hearing the petitioner also. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp