IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 380 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30217/2007 Dated 11/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT: ----------- S.JAYA, H.S.A.(HIGHER GRADE), S.S.P.B. HIGH SCHOOL(AIDED), KADAKKAVUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASURYA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.PADMAKUMAR, HEADMASTER, S.S.P.B. HIGH SCHOOL(AIDED), KADAKKAVUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 2. THE MANAGER,S.S.P.B. HIGH SCHOOL(AIDED), KADAKKAVUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,ATTINGAL. 7. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K. SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.380 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The writ petitioner is the appellant. Her grievance is regarding correction of date of birth of her colleague, who is the 1st respondent herein. The date of birth of the 1st respondent in the S.S.L.C Book and the one entered in the Service Book was 14.12.1952. He got it corrected as 31.10.1953 in the S.S.L.C Book and later in the Service Book also. The Commissioner of Government Examinations corrected the date of birth by order dated 22.5.1984. Finally, the correction was carried out in the service book by Ext.P1 order dated 2.9.1989. The petitioner claims, she came to know of the correction only recently. On coming to know of it, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation dated 18.9.2006 before the Government. Though the petitioner was informed by Ext.P6 dated 10.4.2007 that the Government has called for reports on her representation, no action was taken. Therefore, the writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P1. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. W.A.NO.380/2008 . 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent has got the benefit of entering service using his original date of birth and therefore, at the time of retirement, he cannot be permitted to say his date of birth is something different. In the writ petition, it was contended that the correction of date of birth was done in violation of Ext.P4 Government Order dated 30.12.1991. But, the learned Single Judge found that the correction of date of birth was carried out before the issuance of Ext.P4. At that time, the date of birth could be corrected within two years of his retirement. But, before us, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a different ground which is mentioned above. We notice that as evident from the reply affidavit of the appellant, the 1st respondent joined service in 1977. So, going by the original date of birth, he was aged 25. Going by the revised date of birth, he was aged 24. At that time, going by the Rules regarding age limit for appointment in aided schools, he is eligible to be appointed even according to the corrected date of birth . In other words, the 1st respondent did not derive any special advantage in the matter of entry in service as a result of the original date of birth. W.A.NO.380/2008 . 3 3. We are of the view that the correction of date of birth carried out in the S.S.L.C Book in 1984 and consequential correction of date of birth carried out in the service book in 1989 cannot be permitted to be challenged at this distance of time. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl