IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25032 of 2007(E) PETITIONER: --------------------- C.P.SATHYANARAYANAN, SONG GRADE III, ARTISIT KSHETHRAKALA NILAYAME, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT: ------------------------ THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, MANAGING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25032 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an employee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. He entered service of the Devaswom as a Song Grade II Artist of Kalanilayam on 3.8.1992. He submits that his actual date of birth is 3.7.1969. But the school records shows his date of birth as 20.5.1970. As evidenced by Ext.P1, Guruvayoor Grama Panchayat has issued a certificate showing the date of birth as 3.7.1969. The petitioner submits that though Ext.P1 was shown to the authorities, he was told that only the school records will be taken into account, and if necessary, it was open to him to seek correction of the school records as such. This stand was reiterated in Ext.P2 issued on 28.9.1998. 2. The petitioner made an application before the Government to get his date of birth corrected. By Ext.P3 proceedings dated 11.1.1999, the Government accorded sanction for correction as 3.7.1969 and accordingly the school records were corrected as evidenced by Ext.P4 dated 25.2.1999. Immediately, after W.P.(C).NO.25032/07 :: 2 :: Ext.P4, the petitioner made an application before the Devaswom committee for effecting the correction in the service records. But the committee informed the petitioner that his application is after 5 years and will not be acted upon. This was the content of Ext.P5. The petitioner made an application before the committee. That was also rejected as per Ext.P6. The petitioner then submitted a fresh representation, Ext.P7. Then he filed this writ petition. 3. A statement has been filed wherein the reason for rejection of the correction of date of birth in service records is justified, on the basis of a Government Order, G.O.(P) NO.45/91/P & ARD dated 30/12/91. The orders of the Government in these matters are admittedly followed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom. It is contended that the said Government order prescribes a time limit of 5 years from the date of entry into service for preferring an application for correction of date of birth generally and in the case of persons who enter service subsequent to the date of the Government W.P.(C).NO.25032/07 :: 3 :: order, they should apply within one year from the date on which they entered service for correction of date of birth. Admittedly, the petitioner entered service in the year 1992. But the application was filed only in 1999. It is on this premise that the application for correction of date of birth is rejected. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.N.Anilkumar and learned counsel for Guruvayoor Devaswom Sri.Krishna Menon. 5. This court has repeatedly upheld the prescription of the time frame in the Government order dated 30.12.1991 in the matter of preferring application for correction of date of birth and therefore, the stand taken by the Devaswom as such cannot be found fault with. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a rigid time frame within which the application for correction of date of birth will have to be preferred is normally insisted only in cases where the request for correction of date of birth is made in such a manner that the date of retirement of the employee as such will stand extended. If the request of the petitioner W.P.(C).NO.25032/07 :: 4 :: is accepted, it would abridge the total service that is available to the applicant. This is an attractive argument. 7. I would have persued a more detailed enquiry into this aspect. But learned counsel for Guruvayoor Devaswom submits that the petitioner had a reason when he made an application for correction of his date of birth from 20.5.1970 to 3.7.1969. Apparently, more than one person was recruited on the same day and therefore, if the petitioner's date of birth is corrected as 3.7.1969, he would be entitled to be considered as senior in age among others. This is the sole reason which impelled the petitioner to seek correction of his date of birth. This submission made by learned counsel for Guruvayoor Devaswom seems to be correct. The date of birth in the service records is applicable to the employer and obviously he would be entitled to treat it as the date of birth for all other purposes. But each and every correction made in the school records may not entail any benefit to the person. Therefore, the permission to correct the date of birth is W.P.(C).NO.25032/07 :: 5 :: to be separately considered by the employer. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents had acted arbitrarily or in an illegal manner in rejecting the petitioner's request. The reasons, which have been considered by this court in upholding the time frame fixed in the Government order dated 30.12.1991 while dealing with an application for correction of date of birth, in such a manner that the date of retirement is postponed, would be equally applicable to a case like the present one also where the date of birth is advanced. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S.to Judge.