Kesava Panicker v. State — 1956 DIGILAW 88 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. This is a petition presented under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and S.45 of the Specific Relief Act for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders quashing the order passed by the respondent - the State of Travancore-Cochin, R M2-10883/54/RD, dated 22nd June 1955 rejecting the application of the petitioner, a public servant for correcting his age in the service book and for a writ of mandamus, directions or orders compelling the respondent to reconsider the application in the light of documents produced by him and to bring his date of birth in the service book in conformity with that recorded in other Government records. 2. The averments in the affidavit filed along with the petition are the following:- The petitioner is the Oodukur Settlement Officer, Kuzhithurai. He entered Government service in the year 1115 M.E. as a Magistrate. His date of birth was wrongly entered in the service book as 28th Mithunam 1076. His real date of birth is 28th Mithunam 1080. An application made by him to correct the mistake was rejected by Government by order dated 22nd September 1943 on the ground that his date of birth as shown in the school records was 28th Mithunam 1976. This order is wrong. Art.352F(c) of the Travancore Service Regulations provides that the following documents shall be considered as satisfactory proof of age of an officer. 1. An authenticated extract from the birth register or the baptismal register or the English School Leaving Certificate, or the admission register of a school or college where the officer last studied or a certificate by a Magistrate or other well known and trustworthy persons in the town or village; 2. Original copy of the horoscope, or correspondence at the time of birth supported by a declaration before the Head of the Office; or 3. An affidavit of the parent of the applicant or a close relative who has knowledge of the approximate date of birth of the applicant signed before an officer who is competent to administer oath". 3. On 30th January 1950 Government issued a Circular (Ext. A) calling upon the Heads of Departments and Offices to issue necessary instructions to their subordinates to get their service records examined and any defects or irregularities in respect of their dates of birth as entered therein rectified on proper proof. 3. On 30th January 1950 Government issued a Circular (Ext. A) calling upon the Heads of Departments and Offices to issue necessary instructions to their subordinates to get their service records examined and any defects or irregularities in respect of their dates of birth as entered therein rectified on proper proof. A period of three months from 1st February 1950 was allowed for the purpose. On 22nd February 1950 Government issued another circular (Ext. B) in which it was stated that in the case of graduates the entry in the college certificate and that in the case of non-graduates the entry in the school records would be accepted as correct age. By another circular (Ext. C) dated 21st June 1950 Government extended the time for correcting mistakes in the service books as regards date of birth by a further period of three months from 1st May 1950. Representations were made to Government that there were persons in Government service who had not attended any recognised school and who are therefore not able to produce school certificates for verification of age as required by the circular dated 22nd February 1950. Question was raised as to whether in such cases the documents mentioned in Art.352F(c) of the Travancore Service Regulations might not be accepted as satisfactory proof of age. In a circular (Ext. D) dated 6th November 1950 Government stated that no general order accepting any document other than college certificate or school records need be issued and that every doubtful case would be considered on its own merits by the Administrative Section of the Government Secretariat and appropriate action taken by Government to accept proper satisfactory proof of age as the circumstances of the case justified. 4. On 22nd July 1954 the petitioner presented an application (Ext. E) before the Government praying for review of the order dated 22nd September 1943 and for entering the date of birth of the petitioner in his service book as 28th Mithunam 1080. A supplementary application (Ext. F) was also presented by the petitioner on 15th March 1955. Along with the application dated 22nd July 1954, the petitioner produced the following records: 1. Copy of Government Order dated 22nd September 1943; 2. a gift-deed dated 26th Edavom 1103; 3. SSLC certificate of Sri. M. Rama Panicker, elder brother of the petitioner; 4. copy of the school admission register of Sri. Along with the application dated 22nd July 1954, the petitioner produced the following records: 1. Copy of Government Order dated 22nd September 1943; 2. a gift-deed dated 26th Edavom 1103; 3. SSLC certificate of Sri. M. Rama Panicker, elder brother of the petitioner; 4. copy of the school admission register of Sri. M. Narayana Panicker another elder brother of the petitioner; 5. copy of the school admission register of the petitioner; 6. copy of the school admission register of Sri. M. Parameswara Panicker, an younger brother of the petitioner; 7. letter of the District Judge, Trivandrum showing the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the enrolment register of the court; 8. letter of the Registrar of the High Court showing the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the enrolment register of the High Court; and 9. horoscopes of Sri. M. Narayana Panicker and Sri. M. Parameswara Panicker. Out of these, six documents were discovered only after the date of the order of Government dated 22nd September 1943 and could not therefore be produced in the proceedings which resulted in that order. The petitioner could not produce copy of Birth Register since Births and Deaths Act of Travancore came into force only in 1093. The respondent admitted the application of the petitioner and called for the report of the Director of Public Instruction regarding the correct age of the petitioner. The Director reported that the evidence conclusively showed that a mistake had crept in the entry in the school records regarding the date of birth of the petitioner. But he said that it was not possible to ascertain from the records in his possession the correct date of birth of the petitioner. He recommended that the matter might be enquired into by Government and the benefit of the correction requested by the petitioner given to him. 5. The admission register (Ext. G) of Sri. M. Narayana Panicker the immediate elder brother of the petitioner shows his date of birth as 8th Mithunam 1076. The original horoscope of Sri. M. Narayana Panicker is filed as Ext. L. If the entry in the School admission register of the petitioner is correct, there will be a difference of only 20 days between himself and his elder brother in their age. The petitioner's correct age is entered in the horoscope (Ext. M), the letter of the District Judge (Ext. M. Narayana Panicker is filed as Ext. L. If the entry in the School admission register of the petitioner is correct, there will be a difference of only 20 days between himself and his elder brother in their age. The petitioner's correct age is entered in the horoscope (Ext. M), the letter of the District Judge (Ext. N), and the letter of the Registrar of the High Court (Ext. O). Government refused to consider those documents and rejected the application of the petitioner. The order of Government is highly arbitrary and opposed to the provisions of the Travancore Service Regulations and the Circulars issued by Government (Exts. A to D). Government have misconstrued the Circulars. Extraneous considerations have also weighed with the Government in rejecting the application of the petitioner. The State Life Insurance Department which is under the State Government has entered the date of birth of the petitioner as 28th Mithunam 1080 in the records of the Department. Government is thus keeping conflicting records regarding the date of birth of the petitioner. It is the duty of the Government to keep uniform records regarding the date of birth of an officer. The entry in the school admission register regarding the date of birth of the petitioner is a mistake apparent on the face of the record and it is the duty of the Government to rectify the mistake when it is brought to their notice. Government have in other cases corrected the date of birth of officers in their service books on the basis of records other than college or school admission register. The cases of Sri. C.J. Mathew, Sri. Innocent Pappali, Smt. P.L. Lily, Sri. T.G. Kesavan, Smt. Chandra Bai, Sri. Siluval Rajan and Sri. Alex Beat are instances of the kind. In the circumstances the refusal on the part of Government to correct the mistake in the case of the petitioner offends Art.14 of the Constitution. If the petitioner's date of birth is not corrected. The petitioner will have to retire on 28th Mithunam 1131 (12th July 1956) and will thus be denied the privilege of serving the Government and receiving the emoluments of office for a period of four years. The petitioner has the right to continue in service till he contemplates his fifty-fifth year. 6. The petitioner will have to retire on 28th Mithunam 1131 (12th July 1956) and will thus be denied the privilege of serving the Government and receiving the emoluments of office for a period of four years. The petitioner has the right to continue in service till he contemplates his fifty-fifth year. 6. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State contains the following averments: The order of Government dated 22nd June 1955 is an administrative order passed in the exercise of the executive functions of the Government. The order was passed after consideration of all the relevant documents. The date of birth of the petitioner was entered in the service book on the basis of the school and college records. By the circular dated 5th January 1942, all Government servants were given one year's time to correct mistakes, if any, in the entries in their service books regarding date of birth. The petitioner applied in 1943 to have his date of birth corrected on the basis of his horoscope, a partition deed in his family and the entries regarding the date of birth of his two elder brother Narayana Panicker and Rama Panicker in the school admission registers. After considering all these documents, Government thought fit to accept the entry in the school records relating to the date of birth of the petitioner, and passed an order to that effect on 22nd September 1943. The petitioner acquiesced in that order without demur for a period of about 11 years. Circular dated 6th November 1950 applies only to cases of subordinate Government servants who have not attended any recognised school and are as such unable to produce school records for verification of age. By the Circular dated 21st June 1950 the period fixed for correction of age in service books was extended upto 1st August, 1950. The petitioner did not apply within that period for the correction of his date of birth in the service book. On 22nd July 1954 the petitioner filed a petition for reviewing the order of Government dated 22nd September 1943. A further petition also was presented by him on 15th March 1955 setting forth additional grounds upon which he sought to have the previous order reviewed. On 22nd July 1954 the petitioner filed a petition for reviewing the order of Government dated 22nd September 1943. A further petition also was presented by him on 15th March 1955 setting forth additional grounds upon which he sought to have the previous order reviewed. In forwarding the application of the petitioner to Government the Board of Revenue expressed the view that the petition for review was belated and that the documents produced by him were available to him even when the first application was presented. The Director of Public Instruction to whom the petition was forwarded enquired into the matter and reported that while some mistake must have crept in the date of birth of the petitioner shown in the school records, it was not possible to ascertain his correct date of birth from the papers available. After considering the letter of the Board of Revenue, the report of the Director of Public Instruction, the records produced by the petitioner and the circumstances of the case and in the light of the circulars issued by Government, Government came to the conclusion that there was no necessity to go behind the school records regarding the date of birth of the petitioner and to accept the other documents produced by him in proof of his age. Government therefore passed the order, dated 22nd June 1955 rejecting the application of the petitioner. Government had considered the evidentiary value of the horoscope, the partition deed and the entries regarding the date of birth of the brothers of the petitioner in the school admission registers in the enquiry relating to the petitioner's application filed in 1943. The further documents produced by the petitioner which were on a par with those produced previously were also considered by Government before decision was taken in respect of the review petition. The decision of Government was passed after a fair consideration of the matters raised by the petitioner in his application and in conformity with the relevant rules and circulars. The allegation that extraneous considerations weighed with the Government in passing the order is without any foundation. No provisions of the rules of service or of the regulations and circulars pertaining to them have been violated by Government. Even if there was any irregularity in the application of those rules, that will not entitle the petitioner to a writ of certiorari or mandamus. No provisions of the rules of service or of the regulations and circulars pertaining to them have been violated by Government. Even if there was any irregularity in the application of those rules, that will not entitle the petitioner to a writ of certiorari or mandamus. The instances enumerated in the affidavit of the petitioner to the effect that Government have accepted records other than school or college records as proof of age of Government servants have no bearing on the case of the petitioner. In the case of Sri. C.J. Mathew sanction was accorded by Government to correct his date of birth in the service book and to bring it in accord with the date of birth evidenced by the school admission register. In the case of Sri. Innocent Pappali also this was what was done by Government. In the case of Smt. P.L. Lily, she was admitted in Class I on 9th Mithunam 1116 by her old and illiterate grand-mother. According to the date of birth entered in the school admission register she would be 15 when she joined school. A medical certificate countersigned by the Surgeon-General showed that the girl's probable age in 1954 was 18. In view of these special circumstances sanction was accorded to correct the year of her birth from 1101 to 1111. The date of birth of Sri. T.G. Kesavan given in the school records was corrected on the strength of an order of the First Class Magistrate, Trichur. According to an order of the Cochin Government, dated 19th July 1946, corrections of date of birth could be made on the strength of orders of Magistrates. The date of birth of Smt. Chandra Bai was corrected from 17th June 1935 to 14th June 1935 on the strength of an extract of the birth register and certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Similarly, the date of birth of Sri. Siluval Rajan was corrected from 20th Chingam 1105 to 4th Mithunam 1107 on the strength of the birth certificate and certificate from a Magistrate. The date of birth of Sri. Alex Beat was corrected from 15th May 1941 to 15th October 1940 on the basis of the order of Sub Magistrate, Cochin. There was no discrimination shown by Government in rejecting the application of the petitioner for correcting his age. The date of birth of Sri. Alex Beat was corrected from 15th May 1941 to 15th October 1940 on the basis of the order of Sub Magistrate, Cochin. There was no discrimination shown by Government in rejecting the application of the petitioner for correcting his age. The petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order of Government on any of the grounds alleged in his affidavit. 7. Ext. VI is the order of Government sought to be quashed. It reads as follows: "In G.O.D. Dis. 3098/43/Judicial, dated 22nd September 1943, Government have sanctioned 28th Mithunam 1076 the date entered as the date of birth in the school records being accepted as the correct date of birth of Sri. M. Kesava Panicker. He has now presented a petition for a revision of the above order. The main ground urged for the revision is that the date of birth of his immediate elder brother M. Narayanan is 8th Mithunam 1076 as in the school register (page 45 CF). He has requested that his date of birth may be corrected as 28th Mithunam 1080. The issues raised are: 1. Whether the petition is admissible; 2. Whether the date of birth, viz., 28th Mithunam 1076 entered in the school register is a mistake; and if so, 3. What is his correct date of birth? Issue No. 1.- The petition has not been presented within the period specified in Circular No. FI.96, dated 5th January 1942 and M3-2789/50/CS, dated 30th January 1950 and hence is not admissible. But the petitioner has contended that this is a revision petition filed on the basis of fresh documents discovered. The petition may therefore be admitted with a lenient view. 2. Whether the date of birth, viz., 28th Mithunam 1076 entered in the school register is a mistake. From the geneology given in the petition at page 1 of certificate at page 97 CF and the order of seniority of the members given in the document at page 7 C.F. it may be conceded that Sri. M. Narayanan is the immediate elder brother of the petitioner. The date of birth of Sri. M. Narayanan is given in the school register as 8th Mithunam 1976 (page 45 C.F.) and that of Sri. Kesava Panicker as 28th Mithunam 1076 (page 47 C.F.). There is therefore some likelihood of some mistake having crept in. M. Narayanan is the immediate elder brother of the petitioner. The date of birth of Sri. M. Narayanan is given in the school register as 8th Mithunam 1976 (page 45 C.F.) and that of Sri. Kesava Panicker as 28th Mithunam 1076 (page 47 C.F.). There is therefore some likelihood of some mistake having crept in. But it cannot be definitely said whether the mistake is in the case of Narayana Panicker or Kesava Panicker. Based on the date of birth of Sri. Narayana Panicker therefore, Government cannot presume and order a correction in the date of birth of Sri. Kesava Panicker. Government can only proceed on direct evidence and not on circumstantial evidence. The report of the D.P.I. at page 93 C.F. may be perused. The report is not helpful in deciding the issue. There is no other school record excepting the Admission Register in the Kanjiramkulam High School which gives his date of birth as 28th Mithunam 1076. Hence it cannot be concluded that the date of birth given in the school register is wrong. 4. What is the correct date of birth? The documents advanced in support of his statement that his correct date of birth is 28th Mithunam 1080 are his horoscope and letters from the District Judge and Registrar, High Court (pages 51 and 53 C.F.). Circular R. Dis. 2789/50/CS, dated 6th November 1950 (Flag B) lays down the documents that could be accepted in proof of age. The documents produced by Sri. Kesava Panicker cannot therefore be accepted to show his correct date of birth against the school register. The only course then is to reject the petition of Sri. Kesava Panicker (Sd) 13th June 1955 Assistant Secretary to Government I agree that it is better to reject the petition. These cases if reopened will lead to endless troubles. (Sd) 14th June 1955 Chief Secretary to Government I agree (sd.) 19th June 1955 (M)". 8. The order is impeached on the following grounds:- (1) Government's refusal to correct the age of the petitioner on the basis of the documents produced by him amounted to a failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Government under the Travancore Service Regulations and the Circulars issued by the Government relating to the matter. (2) Government's refusal to take into consideration documents other than school records amounted to an illegal exercise of jurisdiction. (2) Government's refusal to take into consideration documents other than school records amounted to an illegal exercise of jurisdiction. (3) There is error apparent on the face of the records in the order passed by Government. (4) Government was influenced by extraneous considerations in passing the order. (5) The order offends Art.14 of the Constitution in that Government have in the case of other officers accepted documents other than school records as proof of age. (6) Since the date of birth of the petitioner entered in other records kept by the Government is 28th Mithunam 1080, it was the duty of the Government to correct the entry in the service book also and to bring it into conformity with the entry in the other Government records. 9. On behalf of the State it was argued that the order sought to be quashed is not a judicial order but only an administrative order passed by Government in the exercise of its executive functions and that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order. We are unable to accept this argument. The order is the result of an enquiry as to the correct age of the petitioner. The decision is one based on evidence taken by the Government relating to the age of the petitioner. The proceedings were of the nature of a judicial enquiry. We, therefore hold that the petition is maintainable. 10. Coming to the merits of the petition we shall consider each of the grounds raised by the petitioner. Ground No. 1.- It is contended that there was failure on the part of the Government to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the provisions of the Travancore Service Regulations and the circulars relating to the question of correcting the age of Government servants. Art.352F(c) of the Travancore Service Regulations provides that the date of birth of a public servant can be altered by Government. The circulars issued by Government also make it clear that the date of birth of an officer entered in his service book can be subsequently altered by Government. According to the petitioner it is the duty of the Government to correct any mistake in the entry relating to the date of birth of an officer in his service book if proper grounds are made out. According to the petitioner it is the duty of the Government to correct any mistake in the entry relating to the date of birth of an officer in his service book if proper grounds are made out. It was contended that in this case Government proceeded on the basis that it has no jurisdiction to correct the age of the petitioner in his service book if the entry in the service book agrees with the entry in the school admission register. When the petitioner moved the Government in the year 1943 for correcting his age Government held an enquiry into the matter and found that there was not sufficient reason to correct the age of the petitioner as entered in his service book. When the petitioner moved again in 1954 for reviewing the prior order Government conducted a further enquiry in the matter and dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no reason to review the first order. The second inquiry was limited in scope. Government did not reject the petition on the ground that it was not maintainable. The petition was considered on the merits and it was rejected on the ground that in the opinion of the Government there was not sufficient reason to review the prior order which was passed after an enquiry. In the circumstances it cannot be said that it is a case of failure on the part of the Government to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to correct the age of an officer entered in his service book. 11. Ground No. 2.- The second ground urged is that Government Acted illegally in refusing to take into consideration documents other than school records as proof of the age of the petitioner. Reference was made to the following passage in the note of the Assistant Secretary to Government. "Circular R.Dis.2789/50/CS., dated 6th November 1950 (Flag B) lays down the documents that could be accepted in proof of age. The documents produced by Sri. Kesava Panicker cannot therefore be accepted to show his correct date of birth against the school register." The Circular referred to is Ext. D. It reads as follows:-"Ref:- Circular M 3-2789/50/CS, dated 22nd February 1950. "Circular R.Dis.2789/50/CS., dated 6th November 1950 (Flag B) lays down the documents that could be accepted in proof of age. The documents produced by Sri. Kesava Panicker cannot therefore be accepted to show his correct date of birth against the school register." The Circular referred to is Ext. D. It reads as follows:-"Ref:- Circular M 3-2789/50/CS, dated 22nd February 1950. In the Circular under reference, it was ordered that for verification of age of Government servants, the entry in the college certificate will be accepted as correct age in the case of graduates and that in the school registers in the case of non-graduates. Representations have now been made to Government that there are subordinates who have not attended any recognised school and as such they are not able to produce school certificates for verification of age. It has therefore been enquired whether in such cases, the documents mentioned under Art.352(F)(c) T.S.R. may be accepted as satisfactory proof of age. Government consider that no general order accepting any of those documents other than the entries in the College Certificate or the school records, as the case may be, need be issued. Every doubtful case will be considered on its own merits, by the administrative section of the Government Secretariat and appropriate action taken by Government to accept proper satisfactory proof of age as the circumstances of the case would justify." The Circular, dated 22nd February 1950 referred to in Ext. D is Ext. B. It reads as follows: "Ref: - Circular M 3-2789/50/CS, dated 30th January 1950. In the Circular under reference it was ordered that all Heads of Departments and Offices should issue necessary instructions to their subordinates to take immediate steps to get the service records examined and any defect or irregularity in respect of their dates of birth therein rectified on proper proof and that they should arrange for rectification of mistakes or irregular entries on production of satisfactory proof when such cases are brought to their notice, after obtaining sanction of Government. As a further clarification to those orders Government are pleased to order that in the case of graduates the entry in the College Certificate will be accepted as correct age and in the case of non-graduates the school age is the authority". The Circular, dated 30th January 1950 in Ext. As a further clarification to those orders Government are pleased to order that in the case of graduates the entry in the College Certificate will be accepted as correct age and in the case of non-graduates the school age is the authority". The Circular, dated 30th January 1950 in Ext. A which reads: "Attention of Heads of Departments and Offices is drawn to Circular No. FI-96, dated the 5th January, 1942, regarding incorrect entries of the age of Government servants in service records. Government regret to note that there are still several instances of incorrect entries of the age of non¬gazetted officers in their service records. They wish to point out that the Circular referred to is applicable to non-gazetted officers of the State as well. It is therefore directed that all non-gazetted officers should take immediate steps to get their service records examined and any defect or irregularity in respect of their dates of birth therein rectified on proper proof. A period of three months with effect from the 1st February, 1950 is allowed to all non-gazetted officers of the State to rectify the defects in their service records. If after the expiry of the above period any dispensary or irregularity is noticed, Government will be constrained to take drastic action against those concerned. All Heads of Departments and Offices are therefore requested to issue necessary instructions in the matter to their subordinates and arrange for rectification of mistaken or irregular entries in respect of their dates of birth in service records on production of satisfactory proof, when such cases are brought to their notice, after obtaining sanction of Government therefor". 12. A copy of the Circular, dated 5th January 1942 is not produced in the case. It is published at page 323 of the Fifth Supplement to the Travancore Land Revenue Manual, Vol. II. It reads as follows: "Instances of incorrect entries of the ages of Government servants in their records of service having frequently come to notice, Government are led to believe that the instructions contained in Art.325F(c) of the Travancore Service Regulations regarding evidence of age have not been correctly followed by Heads of Department and Officers who are also partly responsible for such wrong records. A system seems to have grown up under which the ages of Government officers were for various reasons either over-stated or under-stated at the time they entered service. A system seems to have grown up under which the ages of Government officers were for various reasons either over-stated or under-stated at the time they entered service. Government have now resolved that the system should be rectified. One year's time is given from 1st January, 1942 to all public servants in the State to make any correction that they wish to make in their recorded ages. If after the expiry of this period any discrepancies are found out, Government will take suitable disciplinary action and the pensions of the officers may also be affected. Heads of Departments and Offices are therefore directed to issue the necessary instructions in the matter to all subordinates and arrange for the necessary corrections based on proper evidence being made promptly as and when cases are brought to their notice after obtaining the necessary sanction therefor." 13. This circular only affirms the provisions of the Travancore Service Regulations regarding proof of age of Government servants. Under Art.352F(c) of the Travancore Service Regulations, an authenticated extract from the birth register or the baptismal register or the English School Leaving Certificate, or the admission register of a school or college where the officer last studied or a certificate by a Magistrate or other well-known and trustworthy persons in the town or village, the original copy of the horoscope, or correspondence at the time of birth supported by a declaration before the Head of the office; or an affidavit of the parent of the applicant or a close relative who has knowledge of the approximate date of birth of the applicant signed before an officer who is competent to administer oath, shall be considered as satisfactory proof of age of an officer. The circular dated 30th January 1950 (Ext. A) only stated that if defects in the service records were not rectified within three months from 1st February 1950 drastic action should be taken against the officers concerned. In the circular dated 22nd February 1950 (Ext. B) it was stated by way of clarification that in the case of graduates the entry in the college certificate would be accepted as correct age and that in the case of non-graduates the school age would be the authority. In the circular dated 22nd February 1950 (Ext. B) it was stated by way of clarification that in the case of graduates the entry in the college certificate would be accepted as correct age and that in the case of non-graduates the school age would be the authority. It does not follow from this that in the case of officers who wanted to show that the entry in the college or school records was incorrect they would be prevented from proving that. The circular did not purport to amend the provisions of the Travancore Service Regulations relating to proof of age of Government servants. The effect of the circular can only be this. Even if the entry in the college or school register relating to the dates of birth of an officer is incorrect Government would accept that entry as proof of age of the officer. It does not necessarily follow from this that an officer will not be allowed to prove that the entry in the school or college register relating to his date of birth is incorrect and that it was the result of a mistake. The third circular Ext. C dated 21st June 1950 only extended the time for correcting entries in service records relating to date of birth by a further period of three months from 1st May 1950. The fourth circular happened to be issued under the following circumstances: It was pointed out to Government that there were Government servants who had not attended any recognised school and were therefore unable to produce school certificates for verification of age. It was enquired whether in such cases documents mentioned in Art.352F(c) of the Travancore Service Regulations might not be accepted as satisfactory proof of age. In the circular (Ext. D) Government stated that no general order accepting documents other than the entries in the college certificate or the school records, as the case may be, need be issued and that every doubtful case would be considered on its own merits and appropriate action taken by Government to accept proper satisfactory proof of age as the circumstances of the case would justify. 14. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that the circular (Ext. D) applies only to cases of subordinate Government servants who have not attended any recognised school. 14. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that the circular (Ext. D) applies only to cases of subordinate Government servants who have not attended any recognised school. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the latter portion of the circular applies to all Government servants. Apart from the question whether the circular applies to all Government servants or not, we do not think that there is anything in the circular which prohibits the Government from taking into consideration documents other than entries in the college certificate or school records as proof of age of an officer. The question therefore for consideration is whether in this case Government acted illegally in not taking into consideration documents other than school records as proof of age of the petitioner. As stated already, the application (Ext. E) presented by the petitioner on 22nd July 1954 was one to review the order of Government, dated 22nd September 1943. The petition itself is styled as one for review of that order. In Para.1 of the petition it was stated that the "review" was filed on the basis of records and documents subsequently discovered. The prayer in the petition is as follows: "In the above circumstances, I pray that Government may be pleased to review their order under reference and to accept 28th Mithunam 1080 M.E. as may correct date of birth". The documents produced by the petitioner along with the petition were: 1. Copy of the order, dated 22nd September, 1953. 2. Will deed, dated 26th Edavom 1103. 3. S.S.L.C. certificate of Sri. M. Rama Panicker. 4. Copy of the admission register of Sri. M. Narayana Panicker. 5. Copy of the admission register of Sri. M. Kesava Panicker. 6. Copy of the admission register of Sri. M. Parameswara Panicker. 7. Letter of the District Judge, dated 3rd Dhanu 1119. 8. Letter of the High Court Registrar, dated 12th October 1943. 9. Horoscope. The petitioner subsequently produced some other documents also namely the horoscope of Sri. M. Narayana Panicker (2) Horoscope of Sri. M. Parameswara Panicker (3) Copy of the admission register of Sri. M. Parameswara Panicker (4) Will, dated 26th Edavom 1103. 15. Ext. I is the report of the Division Peishkar, Quilon to the Government relating to the application presented by the petitioner in 1943 for correcting his age. That shows that the following documents were produced by the petitioner at that time. M. Parameswara Panicker (4) Will, dated 26th Edavom 1103. 15. Ext. I is the report of the Division Peishkar, Quilon to the Government relating to the application presented by the petitioner in 1943 for correcting his age. That shows that the following documents were produced by the petitioner at that time. (1) The horoscope (2) Copy of the admission register of the petitioner (3) Partition deed, dated 6th Edavom 1109 (4) Copy of the admission register of Sri. M. Narayana Panicker (5) S.S.L.C. certificate of Sri. M. Rama Panicker. Government also obtained from the Registrar of the High Court the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the enrolment register of the High Court. After considering all these documents Government passed the following order: "There is nothing suspicious about the entries in the school register so far as the age of Mr. Kesava Panicker is concerned. They are the earliest records and may well be accepted. The entry as to the date of birth (28th Mithunam 1076) appears in two different school records and both of them could not be wrong. The partition deed and the application for enrolment in the High Court are all later records. The fact that his elder brother has given an age which is incomparable with the age given by the younger brother is no consideration to accept the lower age now given by Mr. Kesava Panicker. The date of birth given in the school register may be accepted as correct". (Vide Ext. II) 16. Government forwarded the review petition to the Director of Public Instruction for enquiry and report. Ext. V is the report of the Director of Public Instruction. After referring to the documents produced by the petitioner and the entries in the school register, the Director of Public Instruction reported as follows: "These evidences conclusively show that a mistake has crept in the entry of the date of birth of Sri. Kesava Panicker as shown in the school records. But what Sri. Panicker's correct date of birth is or how it can be discovered is not possible to be recommended from the papers so far available here. I therefore recommend that the matter may be enquired otherwise and the benefit of the correction requested given to the petitioner." It was after considering this report that Government passed the impugned order, Ext. VI. Panicker's correct date of birth is or how it can be discovered is not possible to be recommended from the papers so far available here. I therefore recommend that the matter may be enquired otherwise and the benefit of the correction requested given to the petitioner." It was after considering this report that Government passed the impugned order, Ext. VI. Although the petition was presented about 11 years after the date of the prior order Government did not dismiss it on that ground. Government was of opinion that the records produced by the petitioner only showed that some mistake had crept in the entry regarding the date of birth of either the petitioner or his elder brother Sri. M. Narayana Panicker in the school admission register and that it could not be definitely stated that the mistake was in the case of the entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner. According to Government the report of the Director of Public Instruction was not helpful in deciding the question as to whether the mistake was in the entry regarding the date of birth of the petitioner. When dealing with the question as to the correct date of birth of the petitioner, the Assistant Secretary to Government stated that the documents produced by the petitioner could not be accepted as proof of his date of birth "against the school register". Considering the fact that Government was dealing with a review petition we do not think that the failure on the part of the Government to consider the evidentiary value of all the documents produced by the petitioner is a sufficient ground for us to interfere with the order of Government in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in us under Art.226 of the Constitution. Of the documents which Government refused to consider, the horoscope had already been produced along with the prior application of the petitioner and had been considered by Government. The letter of the Registrar of the High Court showing the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the enrolment register had also been considered by Government on the prior occasion. The letter of the District Judge of Trivandrum only shows that the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the enrolment register of the District Court is the same as that entered in the enrolment register of the High Court. The letter of the District Judge of Trivandrum only shows that the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the enrolment register of the District Court is the same as that entered in the enrolment register of the High Court. The SSLC certificate of M. Rama Panicker had also been produced along with the first application, as also copy of the admission register of Sri. M. Narayana Panicker. The admission register of Sri. M. Parameswara Panicker, the younger brother of the petitioner is also not very helpful in deciding the question as to the correct age of the petitioner. The gift deed, dated 28th Edavam 1103 does not give the age of the petitioner or of his brothers. It only helps to show the order of seniority among the brothers. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced by the failure on the part of Government to consider the evidentiary value of all the documents produced by him in support of his review petition. If Government were considering the matter for the first time the position may be different. But that is not the case here. Government once enquired into the matter and considered all the evidence adduced by the petitioner relating to his age. The petitioner acquiesced in that order and it was after 11 years that he filed the present petition for reviewing the prior order. In the circumstances, we do not think that we shall be justified in interfering with the order of Government on the ground that Government did not take into consideration all the documents produced by the petitioner. 17. Ground No. 3: It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the view taken by the Government that the date of birth of the petitioner's elder brother Narayana Panicker might have been wrongly entered in the school admission register and that there may not be any mistake with regard to the entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner is the result of an error apparent on the face of the record. According to the petitioner the date of birth of Sri. Rama Panicker will go to show that it is not at all likely that there is any mistake in the entry relating to the date of birth of Sri. According to the petitioner the date of birth of Sri. Rama Panicker will go to show that it is not at all likely that there is any mistake in the entry relating to the date of birth of Sri. Narayana Panicker and that the mistake can be only in the entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner. We are not called upon in these proceedings to go into the correctness of the view taken by Government. If we were sitting in appeal from the order of Government we would very likely have taken a different view on the matter. The fact that the date of birth of Sri. Rama Panicker, the immediate elder brother of Sri. Narayana Panicker according to his School Leaving Certificate (Ext. R) is 16th Kumbham 1075 goes a long way to show that there is no mistake in the entry relating to the date of birth of Sri. Narayana Panicker in his school admission register. Again the fact that the date of birth of Sri. Parameswara Panicker, the immediate younger brother of the petitioner as seen from his school admission register (Ext. S) is 15th Chingam 1084 supports the case of the petitioner that the mistake is in the entry relating to his date of birth. But that does not mean that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the order of Government justifying our interference in the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. 18. Ground No. 4: The fourth ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that Government was influenced by extraneous considerations in rejecting the application of the petitioner. The argument was advanced on the basis of the order of the Chief Secretary which is as follows: "I agree that it is better to reject the petition. This case, if reopened, will lead to endless troubles". It is contended that the Chief Secretary has not considered the petition on the merits and that he was influenced by the fact that if the petition was allowed other officers also might present similar petitions. The order of the Chief Secretary does not show that the only reason for his agreeing with the note of the Assistant Secretary was that if the petition was allowed it would lead to endless trouble to the Government. The order of the Chief Secretary does not show that the only reason for his agreeing with the note of the Assistant Secretary was that if the petition was allowed it would lead to endless trouble to the Government. It cannot also be said that the Chief Secretary went out of his way in taking into consideration the effect of reopening the question so far as Government was concerned. A question of policy was involved in it and there was nothing wrong in the Chief Secretary referring to it. We are therefore unable to accept the argument that Government was influenced by extraneous considerations in dismissing the application of the petitioner. 19. Ground No. 5.- The fifth ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of Government offends Art.14 of the Constitution. The reason given is that Government have in the case of other public servants accepted as proof of age documents other than the school or college records. Instances are mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner. In the case of some of the officers Government only allowed the entry in the service book to be corrected in accordance with the entry in the school or college records after the expiry of the time prescribed by Government for making applications for the purpose. In the case of some officers Government did accept as proof of age documents other than School or college records. But we do not think that this amounts to violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. If Government showed any discrimination in the matter of applying the rule relating to proof of age of officers it is only a discrimination shown in the application of the rule. There is nothing discriminatory in the rule itself. As stated already there is nothing in the rules which prohibits the Government from accepting as proof of age of an officer documents other than school or college records. 20. Ground No. 6.- The last ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that Government having entered 28th Mithunam 1080 as the date of birth of the petitioner in the records of the State Insurance Department and the enrolment registers in the High Court and the District Court, it is the duty of Government to keep the service register also in conformity with those records. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Madras High Court, Rama Murthy v. Director of Public Instruction, AIR 1944 Mad. 187. We do not think that that decision has any application to the facts of the present case. Further, the entries in the enrolment registers were not made after an enquiry by the High Court orally the District Court regarding the date of birth of the petitioner. Ext. P, the letter of the State Insurance Officer shows that the date of birth of the petitioner accepted by the State Insurance Department was based solely on the entry in the enrolment register of the High Court. Even otherwise, we do not think that if a mistake was committed in the entry relating to the date of birth in the enrolment register or in the records of the State Insurance Department the petitioner is entitled to have that entry accepted as his date of birth for service purposes also. 21. None of the grounds urged by the petitioner is sufficient to justify our interference with the order of Government in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in us under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is clear that S.45 of the Specific Relief Act has no application to the case. We therefore reject the petition but in doing so we wish to observe that this is a matter in which the petitioner has real grievances. It is for the Government to decide whether the matter requires reconsideration. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.