IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27892 of 2008(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- S.ASOKAN, DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (PROJECT MANAGER), DIESEL POWER PROJECT, K.S.E.BOARD, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27892/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Rejection of the request of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the SSLC book is what is challenged in this writ petition. By Ext.P7, his request was rejected for the reason that in terms of Chapter VI Rule 3 KER, such request could be entertained, provided the application is made within 50 years of age as per the original entry in school records. Admittedly, as on 9.11.03, when the request was made, the petitioner had crossed that age limit. It was for that reason his request was rejected by Ext.P7. He sought review of the order and that was directed to be considered by Ext.P8 judgment of this Court in WP(c). No.13267/08. The matter was reconsidered and by Ext.P9, it has been once again rejected. Petitioner submits that in two 2 other cases, request has been considered ignoring the mandate of Rule 3 noted above. First of all, even if departure from the rules has been made by the Government as contended by the petitioner, that is no reason for this Court to direct that the illegality should be perpetuated. Even otherwise, a reading of Ext.P9 shows that application in those cases were made well within time. In view of the same, I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P9. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3