Writ Appeals Nos. 1260 of 2016, 2002 of 2016 and 2274 of 2016 v. B. Vijayakumar and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941** **WA.No.1260 OF 2016** ## **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 28613/2007 DATED 20-01-2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:** - **1 THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA,THRISSUR-680 656.** - **2 ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND HEAD, AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE & INSTRUCTIONAL FARM, VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 522.** - **3 THE FARM MANAGER AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE INSTRUCTIONAL FARM, VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 522.** **BY SRI. RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL.AG. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT:** - **1 B.VIJAYAKUMAR PERMANENT LABOURER, KERALA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE INSTRUCTIONAL FARM, VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 522.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED R2 SR.GP SRI. A.J. VARGHESE** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2020, ALONG WITH WA.2002/2016, WA.2274/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WA.No.2002 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 21482/2008 DATED 20-01-2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5:** - **1 KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 656.** - **2 THE REGISTRAR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA,** - **THRISSUR-680 656.** - **3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680 656.** - **4 ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND HEAD AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE INSTRUCTIONAL FARM,VELLAYANI PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 522.** - **BY SRI. RANJITH THAMPAN ADDL.AG SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:** - **1 B.VIJAYAKUMAR VINITHA BHAVAN, VANDITHADOM,PALAPPUR, VELLAYANI PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 522.** 3 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED R2 BY SR. GP. SRI. A.J. VARGHESE** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2020, ALONG WITH WA.1260/2016, WA.2274/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 4 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WA.No.2274 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 18046/2008 DATED 20-01-2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:** - **1 THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,VELLANIKKARA, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR-680 656.** - **2 ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND HEAD AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE & INSTRUCTIONAL FARM,VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 522.** **3 KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY MANNUTHY, THRISSUR - 680 656.** - **BY SRI. RANJITH THAMPAN ADDL.AG SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:** - **1 B.VIJAYAKUMAR, PERMANENT LABOURER, KERALA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE INSTRUCTIONAL FARM,VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 522.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED** **R2 BY SR. GP.SRI. A.J. VARGHESE** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2020, ALONG WITH WA.1260/2016, WA.2002/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 5 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 16[th] day of March, 2020 ## **Shaffique, J** These three appeals are filed by the Kerala Agricultural University and its officers challenging a common judgment dated 20.1.2015, in three writ petitions filed by the common petitioner. In WP(C) No. 28613/2007, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents, namely, Kerala Agricultural University and its officers to correct the age and date of birth of the petitioner in the service records based on the extract of admission register maintained by the school in which he had studied. According to him, his actual date of birth is 24.5.1963 whereas in the service records the date of birth is mentioned as 1.7.1953. He is aged only 44 years. He submitted a representation to correct the date of birth which is pending consideration. He alleged that fake medical certificate had been obtained by the additional respondents in order to enter the date of birth in the service records. 2. WP(C) No. 18046/2008 has been filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P8 by which the names of persons who have retired on 30.6.2008 has been published by the University. It is inter alia 6 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 mentioned that the persons named in the list will complete 55 years as on 30.6.2008 and therefore they have to retire from service and the petitioner was also included in the said list. 3. WP(C) No. 21482/2008 has been filed challenging the disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner alleging impersonation. By Ext.P15 order dated 27.6.2008, it is indicated that petitioner's father Sri. K Bhaskaran Varuvila was a labourer in the farm and he died in between 1971 and 1974. The allegation was that during the period between 1971 to 1974 petitioner worked in the farm as K. Bhaskaran Varuvila by impersonating his father. Later he published a Gazette notification stating that Bhaskaran and Vijayakumar are same person and he was included in the seniority list and he continued in the name as Vijayakumar. Later he obtained the right to work as a permanent employee, which amounts to fraud on the University. Since it was found that the fraud has been proved, it was ordered that he is liable to be dismissed from service. Petitioner's contention is that he was enrolled as a farm labourer on 10.4.1982. 4. The University had filed a statement in WP(C) No. 28613/2007 inter alia stating that petitioner's father K. Bhaskaran was a casual labourer in the farm which was taken over by the Kerala Agricultural University. Bhaskaran died in between 1971 and 1974. His death was not intimated to the farm and his name continued in the 7 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 list of casual labourers. Petitioner impersonated as his father K. Bhaskaran and attended duty of casual labourer in the farm. He thereafter published a gazette notification on 4.8.1987 stating that B Vijayakumar and K. Bhaskaran in the attendance book of the Kerala Agricultural College are one and the same person. Based on the said notification, he filed an application to the Professor-in-Charge of the farm on 03.01.1992 to include his name in the place of K. Bhaskaran to include him in the seniority list. Taking into account the gazette publication, the same was allowed and the seniority list was published with the name of the petitioner in place of his father Bhaskaran. Subsequently, he was made a permanent labourer. According to the appellants, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 1.07.1953 based on the medical certificate of his father produced at the time of his initial appointment as casual labourer. The University had filed complaint before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau of the Kerala Police and as per the report of the Superintendent, a criminal case was registered against him under Section 490 and 420 of the IPC. However, the matter was not proceeded, since it was opined that no criminal case can be registered. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioner. 5. A reply affidavit was filed by the writ petitioner, against which a rejoinder was filed. In the rejoinder it was inter alia 8 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 contended that Bhaskaran died on 20.8.1970, but same was not registered in the Panchayat. Therefore the exact date of death cannot be ascertained. Ext.P7 death certificate was issued only on 16.1.2008 after the lapse of more than 30 years, which according to the respondents was bogus and does not bear the signature of the issuing authority. It is further stated that Bhaskaran's name was enrolled in the list of casual labourer during 1971. His name was available in the seniority list of casual labourers during the year 1976 as none has informed about the death of Bhaskaran. The contention of petitioner was that he joined the Farm on 10.4.1982. According to the respondents, the records in the Instructional Farm, Vellayani do not contain entries on enrollment of casual labourer during 1982. The last enrollment was done during 1971. During 1982, a list of 400 men casual labourers was in prevalence and there was no possibility of enrolling new casual labourers. Further, 10.4.1982 was a second Saturday and there was no possibility of enrolling a casual labourer on the said day. It is stated that in the seniority list of casual labourers for the year 1991, there was no casual labourer with the name B. Vijayakumar, whereas there was a casual labourer with the name Bhaskaran Varuvila, which indicates that corrections were effected in the seniority list only in the year 1992. 6. While conducting an enquiry it was noticed that the 9 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 Professor and Head of Instructional Farm nominated 7 men and 47 women casual labourers as permanent labourers and asked them to produce documents for proof of age, caste etc. Petitioner handed over medical certificate as proof of his age and it was affixed in the service book. Date of birth was entered in the service book as 1.7.1953. His seniority was maintained based on the number of working days from 1971. According to the respondents, if he had joined as casual labourer during 1982, he would not have got the seniority as was recorded in the seniority list and he had no chance of becoming a permanent labourer during March, 2000, and that might be the reason for suppressing the fact of having school education earlier. The identification marks mentioned in the medical certificate affixed in the service book of Sri. Vijayakumar are available on his body which he had admitted to the Enquiry Officer. 7. In a statement filed by respondents 2 and 3 in WP(C) No. 18046/2008 it is reiterated that as per service records, the petitioner is to retire on 30.6.2008. They also denied the fact that the petitioner had submitted a representation on 15.5.1982. Though gazette notification was published in August, 1987, corrections in the farm records were effected only in January, 1992. It is reiterated that until 1991, there was no casual labourer by name B Vijayakumar. In W.P.(C).No.21482/2008 a statement was filed. It is inter alia stated 10 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 that the vigilance enquiry and the departmental enquiry conducted in the matter clearly reveal that the petitioner was attending duty as a casual labourer by impersonating himself as his father, without informing the death of his father to the University authorities. He published the gazette notification to the effect that B. Vijayakumar and Bhaskaran are same person and he managed to include his name in the seniority list of casual labourers and got himself appointed as permanent labourer on 1.4.2000. It is further stated that proper enquiry was conducted in the matter. Enquiry report was made available to him and he was given an opportunity to submit explanation. But he did not furnish any explanation against the findings. His explanation was meaningless and therefore disciplinary action was taken against him in accordance with law. 8. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment observed that in so far as the petitioner was regularized with effect from 1.4.2000 along with 54 other persons, no other material is available to indicate the details regarding the engagement of the petitioner as a casual labourer. It was found that the respondents failed to produce any document to show that the petitioner's father was engaged as a casual labourer in the farm. Further it was found that petitioner was suspended as per proceedings dated 30.10.2007. He submitted Ext.P6 explanation when he was served with order of 11 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 suspension. Thereafter he was served with Ext.P7 notice by the Enquiry Officer. But the enquiry was not initiated based on any memo of charges or statement of allegations. No enquiry was conducted based on any specific charges. On the other hand a general enquiry was conducted. The petitioner had submitted a detailed affidavit refuting the allegations contained in the order of suspension. The report would indicate that the petitioner and his mother were questioned by the Officer and it further indicates that a person by name G. Sasi, had submitted a complaint to the University alleging that the petitioner had impersonated his father for getting employment in the farm. Petitioner was not served with a copy of the complaint and no explanation was sought from him with respect to the said allegation. It is further found that the conclusions contained in the enquiry report that the petitioner had impersonated his father for securing casual employment is mainly based on the report of the vigilance enquiry and based on an observation that the petitioner could not explain the circumstances under which he was enrolled as casual labourer during 1982 and got it regularized on the basis that he had worked from 1971. The learned Single Judge had further observed that the disciplinary authority had issued a show cause notice as evidenced from Ext.P11 calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation against the proposed punishment to which petitioner had 12 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 submitted an explanation as Ext.P13 and thereafter since no explanation was forthcoming, he was terminated from service. The learned Single Judge observed that the disciplinary action initiated without issuing any memo of charges or statement of allegations, was totally illegal and therefore, for non compliance of the procedure contemplated under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Contorl & Appeal) Rules, the punishment imposed cannot be sustained. That apart, the Enquiry Officer has placed reliance upon the report of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. But there is no material to indicate that the said report was prepared after giving notice to the petitioner. Accordingly, the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was quashed. 9. With reference to the correction of date of birth in the service records, it is inter alia observed that the date of birth has been entered in the service records based on the medical certificates and accordingly it was found that the date of birth of the petitioner was not correctly endorsed in the service records. Further it was found that the extract of school admission register produced by the petitioner is genuine and no attempt has been made by the respondents to challenge the same. Further it was found that petitioner's mother, who was in the service of respondent had retired on 30.6.2008 and therefore it cannot be imagined that her son also would retire in the 13 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 year 2008. Therefore it was found that the school admission register reflects the actual date of birth and accordingly, direction was issued to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service records. 10. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ranjith Thampan appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has not considered the matter in its proper perspective. This a case in which a person by impersonating his father had remained in the employment as a casual labourer for quite a long time and without producing any material to prove that he was employed on a particular date, got the name of the father changed to his name and obtained permanent employment by defrauding the University. Further the learned Single Judge was not justified in placing reliance upon the school admission register and directing the service records to be corrected. Learned Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in **State of M.P & Others V. Premlal Shrivas** (2011 KHC 4865). Paragraphs 7 and 9 are relevant which reads as under: “ **7.** The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, strenuously urged that the High Court ought not to have directed a change in date of birth of the respondent on his request made after a lapse of over two decades of his joining the service. It was asserted that some of the documents in which his father's name was shown as Gayadin, bore his signatures and, therefore, the plea of the respondent that he was not aware of the contents of his service record cannot be accepted. It was also submitted that as per Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code, the date of birth recorded in the service record is conclusive and only a bona fide clerical mistake in the said 14 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 record can be corrected. To bolster his submission, learned counsel commended us to a recent decision of this Court in _Punjab & Haryana High Court_ v. _Megh Raj Garg_ [(2010) 6 SCC 482 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 221] wherein it has been held that the declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into government service is conclusive and binding on the government servant. xxxx **9.** It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see _Union of India_ v. _Harnam Singh_ [(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ).” 11. Yet another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court that has been relied upon is **General Manager, District Cooperative Bank, Kollam & Others v. Sudhakaran B. B. & Others** 15 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 (2016 (5) KHC 965). Paragraphs 8, 11 & 19 are relevant which reads as under: “8. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to note Rule 197 of the Rules which reads thus: “Rule 197: Maintenance of Service Register.- Every Society shall maintain a service register in the form prescribed by the Registrar for every employee to indicate his date of birth, qualifications, date of appointment, etc. The Chief Executive Officer shall authenticate the entries in the register and such register of the Chief Executive Officer shall be authenticated by the President/Chairman kept in his custody. Note.-The date of birth of the employee shall be that entered in the school admission register, Matriculation Book or S.S.L.C. Book. Provided that in the case of apex, federal or central societies, the entries on the service register of employees other than supervisory cadre shall be authenticated by the employee just subordinate to the Chief Executive Officer of the society.” A bare reading of the aforementioned Rule makes it amply clear that the date of birth of an employee to be found in the service records shall be that entered in the School Admission Register, Matriculation Book or SSLC Book. It is also clear from the said Rule that no limitation whatsoever is prescribed for an employee to make an application for change of date of birth in the service records. Therefore, the learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner argues that it is open for the writ petitioner to make an application for correction of date of birth in the service records as and when he gets the entry regarding date of birth changed in his SSLC Book. According to him, the change of date of birth in the service records is automatic and the same shall follow the correction made in the entries in the SSLC Book. In other words, learned Advocate contends that whenever correction of entry relating to date of birth in the SSLC book is made, it is open for the employee to get such entry changed in the service records also. xxxxx 16 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 11. The Apex Court in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and Others v. R.Kirubakaran (AIR 1993 SC 2647) while considering similar case of delay has observed as under: “An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable.....” From the aforementioned observations, it is amply clear that if no rule or order has been framed prescribing the period of limitation for filing an application for correction of date of birth entry, such application must be filed within the time which can be held to be reasonable. Such dictum is followed by the Apex Court in various other judgments. We find that there is a tendency on the part of employees to get their date of birth corrected when they are due to retire. Such move has to be discouraged for reasons more than one. Courts do not come to the aid of persons who sleep over their rights. Further, change in the date of birth by an employee has a direct impact on the service conditions of persons working junior to him. We have been finding a number of instances wherein employees of the Government or its instrumentalities are 17 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 approaching the courts of law/tribunals/authorities for getting their date of birth changed at the fag end of their service when they are due for retirement. Such action of the employees need to be curtailed. xxxxxx 19. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, particularly having regard to the consistent dictum laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the conclusion that the learned single Judge is not justified in allowing the writ petition filed seeking correction of date of birth entry in the service records on the eve of his retirement. Hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and we do so.” 12. While impugning the aforesaid judgment, it was also pointed out that the Government has issued orders for correction of date of birth in the service book on 27.8.1991. It was indicated that the correction of date of birth would be allowed only on certain conditions. Four conditions had been specified which indicates that the application for correction should not be made beyond the period of two years preceding the employee's retirement and it should be supported by attested copies of SSLC/SSC book or extract of school records whichever is applicable as correct. It is further indicated that under no circumstances will an application for correction of date of birth be entertained within the two year period prior to the date of retirement of the employee. In yet another Government order dated 30.12.1991, the Government having taken note of the tendency to correct the date of birth by several employees observed that, there was no rationale in 18 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 allowing a correction after a substantial service and therefore it was held that, in modification of the existing orders, applications for correction of date of birth, if any, needed in the case of a Government employee shall be made within five years of one's entry in service. In the case of those who have already crossed this limit, one year time from the date of this order shall be allowed, provided they apply beyond the two year period preceding retirement, reckoned with reference to the date of birth as recorded in the service book. 13. With regard to the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is concerned, the learned Single Judge had quashed the disciplinary action taking into account the fact that memo of charges with statement of allegations had not been issued. What we find is that, after issuing a show cause notice, the petitioner have given an explanation and without issuing any memo of charges, an enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. There is no dispute about the extract of admission register produced by the petitioner. The main grievance urged by the appellant is that the petitioner was working as an employee of the farm duping his father, who expired in between 1971 and 1974. According to the petitioner, he joined service in the farm only on 10/4/1982. But no material had been produced to prove that petitioner's father was working in the said farm prior to his death. Petitioner's case is that his name was wrongly recorded as 19 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 K.Bhaskaran Varuvila and pursuant to the gazette notification in the year 1987, he requested for change of name, which was incorporated later. The only infirmity which we find from the pleadings is that the University has a case that the petitioner was made permanent on completing 25 years of service in March, 2000. If the petitioner already had 25 years of service in March, 2000, and his date of birth is 24/5/1963, he would have joined as a casual labourer at the age of 12, which may not be correct, as during the relevant time, he was studying in a school and even according to him, he joined the farm only on 10/4/1982, while he was 19 years old. But still there is no material to indicate that all the casual workers who were at the age of 25 were made permanent. In fact, there is no clarity on the aforesaid submissions of the University. 14. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, there is delay on the part of the petitioner in requesting for correction of date of birth. Petitioner is a member of weaker section of community and there is also evidence to show that his mother retired on superannuation only on 30/6/2008. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, if the mother retired in the year 2008, definitely the claim of the petitioner would have been correct. When the learned Single Judge had in exercise of the discretionary powers directed correction of date of birth, we do not 20 W.A.Nos.1260, 2002 & 2274 of 2016 think it appropriate to interfere with the said judgment. Writ appeals are, therefore, dismissed. **Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/MARY JOSEPH** kp/Rp True copy **JUDGE** P.A. To Judge