IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38196 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.K.RAJAGOPALAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.N.KUNHIRAMAN, RETIRED FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NEERANJALI HOUSE, NEAR TALI SREE MAHADEVA TEMPLE, KOLLAM P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, WEST HILL BEACH, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.38196 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th January,2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge herein is against Exhibit-P8 order by which the petitioner was found not entitled for correction of his date of birth in the service book. The short facts are the following. 2. The petitioner retired from service as a Fisheries Development Officer Gr.I. While he was working at Calicut West Hill in the office of the Fisheries Development Officer, Vatakara, he joined service on 17.10.1980 in the Police Department as L.D Clerk. Later, he got transfer to Fisheries Department on 1.3.1983. Ultimately, after getting various promotions, he reached the stage of Fisheries Development Officer Gr.I. 3. Petitioner submitted an application for correction of his date of birth in the S.S.L.C Book before the Commissioner for Government Examinations, which was allowed as per Exhibit-P4 order dated 28.6.1988. W.P ( C) No.38196 of 2008 2 Thereafter, in the service book of the petitioner, necessary corrections were made by the superior Officer which is evident from Exhibit-P5. According to the petitioner, at that relevant time when the S.S.L.C Book was sought to be corrected, there were no circulars/ orders detailing the circumstances under which the date of birth can be corrected in the service book of an employee. Exhibits P1, P2 and P3 are the Government Orders which were issued detailing the procedure regarding the correction of date of birth in the service book of an employee. As per the said circulars, the authority competent to make correction is the Government in the Administration Department. 4. Obviously, the said procedure was not followed when the petitioner was given a corrected entry as per Exhibit-P5, and it was unauthorised. He filed an application for correction again as per Exhibit-P5 (a) before the Government. This is dated 10.9.2007. Going by the date of birth entered in the service book he was to retire from service on 31.12.2007. Since he was continuing in service even after that date, by Exhibit-P7 his service was W.P ( C) No.38196 of 2008 3 terminated with effect from 5.4.2008. He filed a subsequent representation seeking for correction of his date of birth in the service records. By Exhibit-P7 judgment this Court directed the Government to consider the application submitted by the petitioner expeditiously. Exhibit -P8 is the order passed by the Government. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who submitted that authorities were bound by the correction in the service book of the petitioner at the relevant time as per Exhibit-P5 and the later application filed by the petitioner was only as directed by the superior officers but still independent of it as his date of birth was corrected in the service book at the relevant time, he had right to continue in service till 3.9.2008. According to him there were no circulars in force regarding the procedure for correcting the entry in service records. 6. The said argument appears to be not correct. Exhibit-P1 guidelines is dated 3.12.1987. In fact, even as per the said order it is evident that there were several earlier Government Orders referred thereto therein W.P ( C) No.38196 of 2008 4 detailing the procedure for correction of date of birth in the service book. Reference has been made to the Government Order dated 22.1.1972, in Exhibit P1. 7. Paragraph 3 of Exhibit-P1 refers to the said order. As per the said Government Order, it was clarified that except in exceptional cases, where it has been adeuqately made out that the concerned officer did not and could not have an opportunity to make his request, requests for correction or alteration of date of birth of Government servants would not be allowed within two years of the date of their retirement. Ultimately in Exhibit-P1 it was made clear that the request made by the employees to the Government in the concerned Administrative Departments for the correction of date of birth noted in their Service Register before two years of their retirement based on the correction of date of birth passed by the Commissioner for Government Examinations will be considered and decided on merits and existing orders. In Exhibit P8, therefore, the Government clearly found that even at the time when the alleged correction was made in the service book, they alone W.P ( C) No.38196 of 2008 5 could have allowed the correction even if the application was admissible under the Rules. That was not done in this case. Accordingly, the Government found that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief. Therefore, the application for correction of date of birth could have been considered only under the relevant orders as per Exhibits P3 and P4. 8. If that be so, the application was not within the permissible time. In that view of the matter, the Government found that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the matter and that he was not eligible for correction of his date of birth in the service records. 9. It cannot be said that the view taken by the Government is wrong. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as on the date of correction of the entry in the service book there were no Circulars/Orders in force in view of the fact that Exhibit-P1 was in force from 3.12.1987. The said contention cannot be accepted. The correction made as per Exhibit-P5 is on 13.7.1988. Exhibit P1 was only consolidating the earlier W.P ( C) No.38196 of 2008 6 orders passed by the Government. Hence I do no find any reason to accept the said contention. The application filed as Exhibit P5 (a) is not one coming within the para meters of Exhibit-P3. Hence the rejection of the same as per Exhibit-P8 is perfectly justified. The correction made as per Exhibit-P5 was not in accordance with the Government Orders in force, at the relevant time. It was made by the superior officer, who was not competent to do so. The correction in the S.S.L.C Book itself is made only by Exhibit-P4, after the coming into force of Exhibit-P1. Hence he was bound by the stipulations contained in Exhibit P1. Hence the termination of his service, is in order. I do not find any reason to interfere with Exhibits P6 to P8. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was entitled to get salary till 5.4.2008, on which date he was relieved from service. This request was not seem made before the concerned authorities. Petitioner can file a representation before the competent authority raising such claim. If the petitioner files such an W.P ( C) No.38196 of 2008 7 application within three weeks from today, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.38196 of 2008 8 W.P ( C) No.38196 of 2008 9