Balakrishnan vs State of Kerala and Others

C.S. Rajan

The petitioner who is an aided school Headmaster wants to correct his date of birth from 11-11-1939 to 7-8-1941. As per Ext.P2 order dated 28-10-1991 the second respondent corrected the date of birth of the petitioner in the S.S.L.C. book as 7-8-1941. Ext.P2 specifically stated that this course did not necessary entail alteration of date of birth in service records for which the petitioner should apply to concerned authorities. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application before the Government on 18-12-1991 evidenced by Ext.P3. In Ext.P3 the petitioner requested to correct his date of birth as 7-8-1941 in Part I of his service book. The same was rejected by Ext.P4. In Ext.P4 it was stated that the petitioner was admitted to Standard I on 18-6-1945 with the date of birth 11-11-1939. If the claim of the petitioner that his correct date of birth is 7-8-1941 is true, he would have been admitted to Std.I at the age of 3 years and 10 months. On the above ground the request for correction of date of birth in the service book was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner filed Ext.P5 Review Petition. Ext.P5 was rejected by Ext.P6 stating that the Government did not find any reason to reconsider the decision. Shri V.K. Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the note to Rule 28 of Chap.XIV-A of the K.E.R. lays down that the date of birth to be entered in the service book at the time of the entry in the service shall be that entered in the school admission register, Matriculation book or S.S.L.C. book, the school records which stand corrected as per Ext.P2 order must be the basis for the entry in the service book. Ext.P2 itself was passed by the second respondent in exercise of the statutory authority under Rule 3(2) of Chapter VI of the K.E.R. It was further argued that there would be no scope for 2 different dates of birth as far as a person is concerned. Once the date of birth is corrected in the S.S.L.C. book, it must be automatically carried out in the service book.

The further argument is that the Government cannot issue any executive orders curtailing the powers of the authorities to correct the date of birth under the proviso to Rule 28 of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R.

In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it has been stated that the Government is the sole authority in the matter of correction of date of birth in the service book. Moreover, a mere correction of date of birth in the school records will not result in the correction of the date of birth in the service book.

Rule 3(2) of Chap.VI of the K.E.R. empowers the Commissioner for Government Examinations to correct the date of birth in the school records. Rule 28 of Chapter XIV-A lays down that the date of birth to be entered in the service book shall be that entered in the school admission register or S.S.L.C. Book. What the petitioner wants is that the correction in the S.S.L.C. book must automatically be reflected in the service book also. On a reading of the two rules together, I do not find any justification to accept the interpretation of the petitioner. The rules in Chap.VI and Chap.XIV-A lay down the procedure for the correction of date of birth. The authority to correct the date of birth in the service book is the Government. The Government is bound to consider the case for correction of the date of birth on merits and depending upon the facts of each case. There is no rule that correction in the S.S.L.C. book must automatically be carried out in the service book. Correction of date of birth in the service book is not a matter which has to follow automatically by the correction in the S.S.L.C. book. The Government is competent to lay down rules, norms and guidelines with respect to the correction of date of birth. The Government has prescribed a time limit for the correction of date of birth of Government employees in the service book. Three such orders have been referred to in the Note to Rule 28 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. It also mentions that the conditions stipulated in these orders shall be applicable to aided school staff. Therefore these orders are not either in violation or in conflict with the rules in the K.E.R. Moreover, the Supreme Court as well as this court has deprecated the attitude of the Government servants in approaching the authorities and courts for correction of date of birth at the fag end of their career. In this case also the petitioner has approached for correction of date of birth almost at the fag end of his career. It is not as if the petitioner did not know his actual date of birth when he entered the service. For a long time the above date of birth remained in the service book without any alteration. Under these circumstances I cannot say that the rejection of the petitioner''s request for correction of date of birth is either illegal or arbitrary. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The Original Petition is dismissed.