High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-05-23Petition dismissed

Sasi, Nirmalyam s/o Kochukunju v. Secretary to Government General Education Department, The Commissioner of Government Examinations, and Kerala State Electricity Board

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.25835/11

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date: 2014-05-23
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed. The court notes the belated nature of the request and holds that correction of the date of birth in the SSLC book cannot be entertained belatedly with an automatic extension of service; the petitioner’s claim for continuation till 31.01.2015 is rejected.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SASI, NIRMALYAM S/O KOCHUKUNJU, MADUTHERI, PATTAZHY P.O. KOLLAM

Respondents

Secretary to Government General Education Department, Secretariat (Annexe), Thiruvananthapuram
The Commissioner of Government Examinations, Pareeksha Bhavan, Poojappura Thiruvananthapuram-695012
Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. Jayapradeep

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. T.R. Rajesh, Government Pleader
• Sri. K.S. Anil, SC, KSEB

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court writ petition (W.P.(C).No. 25835/11) concerns a retirement-bound employee who seeks correction of his date of birth, alleging a clerical entry error in the SSLC book and service records. The petitioner asserts that his true date of birth is 20.01.1959, though the SSLC entry erroneously shows 14.06.1957, a discrepancy traced to a readmission event at the LP School, Thekketheri, where the admission register date was incorrectly entered. He submitted a correction application on 12.10.2010 after discovering the error upon receiving ext. materials (Ext.P1–P4). The petitioner contends that Rule 3, Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) deals with corrections in the admission register, not the SSLC book; thus the belated request for correction is comprehensible and should be entertained. He argues that correcting the SSLC birth date would impact his service records and retirement date, and seeks mandamus to correct the birth date in the SSLC book and extend his service till 31.01.2015. The respondents dispute the belated nature of the request, emphasize laches, and rely on established law that belated corrections cannot automatically adjust service records. The court ultimately dismisses the petition, holding no merit in such belated relief and rejecting automatic extension of service despite the correction.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Education Rules (KER), Rule 3, Chapter VI

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the date of birth was wrongly entered in the SSLC book as 14.6.1957 whereas his correct date is 20.01.1959, as recorded in the school admission records. He states that the error is a clerical one arising during readmission to LP School, Thekketheri; Ext.P1 shows the correct birth date per the headmistress certificate and Ext.P4 documents acknowledging the error; he submitted correction on 12.10.2010 within retirement horizon. He argues that Rule 3 of Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules governs corrections in the admission register, not necessarily the SSLC book, and thus the petition should be entertained. He asserts that belated correction resulted from respondents’ laches, and that correction in the SSLC book would affect service records and retirement; therefore he seeks mandamus to correct the birth date and permit continuation in service till 31.01.2015, asserting no adverse public interest or impact on others.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the petition is belated and not maintainable; corrections of birth date in the SSLC book cannot be entertained belatedly. They rely on the settled law that belated corrections cannot automatically reflect in service records or extend service beyond retirement. They contend that even if the SSLC book is corrected, it does not automatically alter service records or retirement. They cite decisions such as Union of India v. Mrs. Saroj Bala (AIR 1996 SC 1000) and Baskaran v. State of Kerala (ILR 2000(1) Ker. 274 (DB)) to illustrate that a belated request should not result in automatic relief. The respondents urge dismissal of the petition, highlighting lack of merit and absence of the requisite justification for extending service prior to retirement.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union of India and others v. Mrs.Saroj Bala	AIR 1996 SC 1000	Positive	Court relied on this decision as authority for the settled position that belated corrections cannot be entertained and that correction in entries does not automatically extend service.
Baskaran v. State of Kerala	ILR 2000(1) Ker. 274 (DB)	Positive	Cited as supportive authority for the proposition that belated correction cannot automatically modify service records and extend service.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sasi, Nirmalyam s/o Kochukunju v. Secretary to Government General Education Department, The Commissioner of Government Examinations, and Kerala State Electricity Board and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2014/2ND JYAISHTA, 1936 WP(C).No. 25835 of 2011 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): - ----------------- SASI, NIRMALYAM S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, MADUTHERI, PATTAZHY P.O. KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): - ------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT (ANNEXE) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012. ## 3RD ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1,2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAJESH R3 BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.7.2013, THE COURT ON 23.05.2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.25835/11 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: - EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27/9/2010 ISSUED BY THE PRESENT HEADMISTRESS, L.P.S, THEKKETHERI. - EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD PAGE OF THE S.S.L.C BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 27.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ==========================** ## **W.P.(C). No.25835 OF 2011 ==========================** Dated this the 23[rd] day of May, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** On the verge of retirement from service, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the following prayers:- - i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction, directing the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.1.1959 in his S.S.L.C book and his service records. - ii.Issue a writ of certiorari calling Ext.P3 and quash the same. - iii.Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction, commanding the 1[st] respondent to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 31.01.2015. 2. At the very outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner has not stated the date of commencement of his service under the additional third respondent. At the same time, it is his case that two years prior to his retirement from its service, he submitted an application on 12.10.2010 before the Government seeking correction **W.P.(C).25835/11** 2 of his date of birth in the SSLC Book. The contention of the petitioner is that in the SSLC Book, his date of birth was wrongly entered as 14.6.1957 whereas his date of birth was correctly entered in the school admission records as 20.1.1959. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the mistake crept in the date of birth entry only when he received Exts.P1 and P4 in the year 2010 and immediately thereafter, he submitted an application for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book on 12.10.2010. It is the contention of the petitioner that the date of birth was wrongly entered in his SSLC Book on account of laches on the part of the persons who made the entry at the time of his readmission in the L.P.School, Thekketheri. Ext.P1 would reveal that while studying in the second standard, he was removed from the rolls of the school as early as on 31.1.1967 and subsequently, readmitted in the school on 29.5.1967. It is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of such readmission, his date of birth was wrongly entered in the admission register and that the said wrong entry in the admission register was carried over and it **W.P.(C).25835/11** 3 was duly entered in his SSLC Book as also in his service records. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 would reveal that the error in the entry of his date of birth must have been a clerical error. In this context, it is contended that Rule 3 in Chapter VI of the KER is totally inapplicable in the case of the petitioner. It is contended that a bare perusal of the said provision would reveal that it deals only with correction of date of birth entered in the admission register. As noticed hereinbefore, the date on which the petitioner entered into the service of the KSEB has not been stated in the writ petition. But at the same time, it is evident that he has submitted the application for correction of date of birth in the service records only at the fag end of his career. The petitioner seeks correction in the date of birth in his SSLC Book and consequential direction to the respondents to permit him to allow him to continue in service till 31.1.2015. In view of the settled position of law, such a belated request for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book and consequential relief of permission to continue in service cannot be entertained. (See the decisions in **Union** **W.P.(C).25835/11** 4 **of India and others v. Mrs.Saroj Bala** reported in **AIR 1996 SC 1000** and in **Baskaran v. State of Kerala** reported in **ILR 2000(1) Ker. 274 (DB)** ). It is also to be noted that even in case the petitioner gets his date of birth corrected in his SSLC book that would not make him entitled to get an automatic correction in the service records and to continue in service till such correction and thereafter, subject to such correction. There is no merit in this writ petition and this writ petition carrying such a belated claim is not liable to succeed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** ## **spc/** **W.P.(C).25835/11** 5 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **JUDGMENT September, 2010** # **W.P.(C).25835/11** 6