## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR**
## **TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/16TH PHALGUNA 1933**
## **WP(C).No. 27781 of 2011 (W)**
**---------------------------**
## **PETITIONER(S):**
**-------------------------**
**MRS.MARYAMMA JOSEPH, D/O.C.T.VARGHESE, MAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, EAST OF ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE OFFICE, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA 688 013.**
**BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU**
## **RESPONDENT(S):**
**--------------------------**
**1. STATE OF KERALA**
- **REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**
**2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT**
- **EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**
**R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LOWSY.A.**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **Kss**
## **WPC.NO.27781/2011 W**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS**
**EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS,ALAPPUZHA ON 24.3.2008.**
**EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE EARLIER SSLC BOOK ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.**
**EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.3-6-06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
**EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO 2248/200/G.EDN DATED 3.6.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.**
**EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27.8.2011 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.6.2008 FOR CORRECTION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.**
**EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/EX/B4/22421/08/CGE DATED 4.6.2009 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.7.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 6.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23-4-11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-11-2010 IN W.P.C NO.32616 OF 2010. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10-1-2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**
**Kss**
**..2/-**
**..2....**
## **WPC.NO.27781/2011 W**
**EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7-2-11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18-5-2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28-5-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, GOVT. OF KERALA. EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-08-2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:**
**R2(A): COPY OF G.O.(P) 45/91/P&ARD DTD. 30/12/91.**
## **/TRUE COPY/**
**P.A.TO JUDGE**
**Kss**
## **`T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.27781/2011-W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 6[th] day of March, 2012`**
**==> picture [118 x 8] intentionally omitted <==**
The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders rejecting the request to correct the entry regarding date of birth in service records.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. Exts.P14 and P16 are the orders under challenge which are issued by the Government with regard to the application for correction of date of birth in service records. In Ext.P14, it is pointed out that the application cannot be allowed in view of the provisions in G.O.(P). No.45/91/P&ARD, dated 30/12/1991 and the clarification thereto in Circular No.4735/Adv.C3/2008/P&ARD dated 23/08/2008.
4. The petitioner's case is that she has been working as High School Assistant in St.Michael's High School, Thathampally in Alappuzha District. She is due to retire from service on 31/03/2011. Her correct date of birth is 02/04/1958 and it is averred that the same is recorded in Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Alappuzha Municipality. It is pointed out that the date of birth in the school records was entered incorrectly as 19/11/1956. According to her, the same was due
## **W.P.(C). No.27781/2011**
## **-:2:-**
to the ignorance of her illiterate relatives who took her for admission in the primary school and the mistake was carried out in the school records and in the S.S.L.C book. Therein, the date of birth noted is 19/11/1956 (Ext.P2). The same was carried to the Service Book.
5. Ext.P3 is the application submitted by the petitioner dated 03/06/2000 requesting the Government to condone the delay in submitting the application for correction of date of birth. It appears that by Ext.P4, the application was allowed and Ext.P5 application was submitted. Exts.P6 and P8 are the orders rejecting the application. Finally, the petitioner approached this Court challenging Exts.P6 and P8 orders and the relevant orders were quashed by this Court by Ext.P11 Judgment wherein the direction was to reconsider the application. Thereafter, by Ext.P12, proceedings were issued to correct the entries regarding date of birth in her qualification certificate and Tabulation Register concerned. The same is dated 10/01/2011.
6. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application as per Ext.P13 dated 07/02/2011 before the first respondent seeking correction of date of birth in her service records following the corrections made in her schoo1 certificate. By Ext.P14 it was rejected, as already noted above,
## **W.P.(C). No.27781/2011**
## **-:3:-**
against which the petitioner filed a fresh representation to reconsider the application and finally, by Ext.P16, the said request was also rejected. The view taken in Exts.P14 and P16, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, cannot be accepted. It is stated that because of the delay in the office of Commissioner of Government Examinations and the Government in passing orders in the first stage, the petitioner could submit Ext.P13 application only on 07/02/2011. It is pointed out that the delay cannot be attributable to the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the view taken by the Government relying upon G.O.(P).No.45/91/P&ARD dated 30/12/1991 cannot be supported.
7. Going by the said Government Order, the application for correction of date of birth shall be made within five years of his/her entry into service. The said Government Order has been made applicable to aided schoo1 Teachers also. In fact, the Government has relied upon the Judgment in **Mariamma v. State of Kerala [1997 (2) KLT 115]** wherein this Court considered the said Government Order and in paras.9 and 10, it was held thus:
“9. In many cases persons who enter service or are continuing in service taking note of their future prospects. Therefore age of retirement of seniors will be closely watched
## **W.P.(C). No.27781/2011**
## **-:4:-**
by juniors so as to get promotion. Cases also not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. Therefore, if a senior gets his date of birth corrected at the fag end of his career, and continues in service, that will affect the promotion chances of his juniors as well. This aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in _Secy. & Commr. V. Kirubakaran,_ 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155.
10. Looking at the above mentioned principles, needless to say that Government’ order has to be strictly followed. As per the Government order dated 30.12.1991, an application submitted by the employee shall be supported by attested copies of SSLC/ SSC book or extract of school record as corrected and that mere correction of date of birth in the school record does not entitle the employee for consequential correction of date of birth in service book. Therefore, the mere fact that petitioner submitted an application within one year from the date of the Government order would not suffice. Petitioner has to submit the application with all relevant documents which are necessary to establish his case. Those evidence which the petitioner produces should amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Petitioner cannot put in some application or representation before the Government, and then go on collecting evidence. It he is relying on the date of birth as corrected in the SSLC book, he has to produce the same / along with the application at least
## **W.P.(C). No.27781/2011**
## **-:5:-**
within one year from the date of the Government order. In other words, Government have given one year time to the employees to collect evidence and prove their correct date of birth. It is also for the petitioner to produce whatever documents necessary for carrying out the correction of date of birth in the service records, within the stipulated time. Contention of counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has applied for correction of date of birth before the Commissioner for Government Examinations in time and the delay had occurred at the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations, I am of opinion, cannot be countenanced. It is the responsibility of the employee to see that all documents are collected and produced along with the application within one year from the date of the Government order. Therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that since the delay had occurred in the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations, her application should have been considered by the Government cannot be accepted.”
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without correcting the entry in the schoo1 records the petitioner could not have submitted the application. Even if that be so, it is clear that the petitioner had filed the application for correction of entry in schoo1 records only in the year 2000. There is no scope for relaxation of the conditions in the Government Order G.O.(P).No.45/91/P&ARD dated 30/12/1991 which fact
## **W.P.(C). No.27781/2011**
## **-:6:-**
is also settled by the various decisions of this Court. As far as a Government employee or a person like the petitioner is concerned the date of retirement is a known one. In that context, various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court have laid down that the procedure prescribed for entry in service records should be viewed strictly and no relaxation is possible. The attempts made by the persons concerned to correct the entry in service records as corrected in the schoo1 records at the fag end of the service cannot be accepted. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
## **`Sd/-`**
```
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
```
## **`ms`**
