Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is in the service of the State as a Head Constable in the Police Department. He entered service on 1-6-1939 as a Constable and was promoted as a Head Constable in 1946. According to the entry relating to the date of birth in the service register the petitioner was due to retire on 5-11-1969, his date of birth having been entered as 5-11-1914. The petitioner, however, put in a representation before the District Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode, dated 16-9-1969 requesting for a correction of the entry relating to his date of birth in the service register on the ground that the said, entry was incorrect and that his correct date of birth was 18-1-1916. The circumstances under which the mistake was alleged to have occurred have, been narrated by the petitioner in Ext. PI and it has been stated by him that the correct date became known to him only when he accidentally came across his horoscope which had been kept by his deceased mother amongst some of her belongings and the said horoscope disclosed that the petitioner was born only on the 4th Makarom, 1091. It is further stated in Ext. PI that since the birth of the petitioner bad taken place within the Calicut municipal limits, the petitioner on coming to know of the correct date as above-mentioned applied to the Calicut Corporation for a certified extract of the birth register and the said .extract also showed that a male child was born to his parents on 18-1-1916 corresponding to the 4th Makarom, 1091. The said certificate in original was submitted by the petitioner along with the representation Ext. PI with an affirmation that he was the only male child born to his parents which fact, according to him, necessarily showed that the certificate must relate only to his birth. Subsequently, the petitioner also forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode a certified copy of the voters'list of the Balusseri constitutency in proof of the facts that he was born in Kalathinkunnu Amsom in Ward B of the Calicut Municipality in Nalukudi Paramba and that the names of his father and mother were respectively Choy and Keerachi alias Meenakshi. This document was forwarded under cover of the supplemental representation Ext. P2 wherein also the petitioner has asserted that he was the only son of his parents. 2. This document was forwarded under cover of the supplemental representation Ext. P2 wherein also the petitioner has asserted that he was the only son of his parents. 2. The Superintendent of Police informed the petitioner as per Ext. P3 that the birth certificate which the petitioner had forwarded, could not be considered "as an authenticated document" to prove his date of birth. Apparently what was meant by this communication was that the petitioner's request for correction of the entry relating to his date of birth in the service register was being thereby rejected. In view of the above, the petitioner thereafter, put in a representation evidenced by Ext. P4to the Minister for Home Affairs, Government of Kerala, requesting that his prayer for correction of the entry relating to his date of birth may be granted. In the said representation the petitioner set out in detail all the facts which he had already placed before the District Superintendent of Police and also enclosed therewith the original of the birth certificate and the extract of the voters' list in substantiation of his case that the date of birth as entered in the service register was incorrect. The petitioner also put in an application (Ext, P6) before the Director of Public Instruction, Kerala wherein he stated that he had been admitted in the Government Fisheries Model School, Vellayil and had studied in the said school up to the 5th Standard and that a mistake had crept in while making the entry in the school admission register regarding the petitioner's date of birth which in turn had given rise to a corresponding mistake in his service register entry which was based only on the entry in the school admission register. The petitioner set out in Ext. P6 the facts which he had already placed before the Superintendent of Police and the Minister and forwarded to the Director of Public Instruction copies of the birth register extract certificates obtained from the Municipality. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the representations made by him before the Home Minister as per Ext. P4 and the Director of Public Instruction as per Ext. P6 were still pending before those authorities, the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode, issued the communication Ext. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the representations made by him before the Home Minister as per Ext. P4 and the Director of Public Instruction as per Ext. P6 were still pending before those authorities, the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode, issued the communication Ext. P5 dated 13101969 stating that notwithstanding the pendency of the petition filed by him before the Minister the petitioner will have -to retire from service on 5-11-1969 as already ordered. Hence, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking to quash the orders Exts. P3 and P5 passed by the Superintendent of Police and seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamas directing respondents 2 and 3, namely the State of Kerala and the Director of Public Instruction to dispose of the representations evidenced by Exts. P4 and P6 and to permit the petitioner to continue in service in the meantime. 4. There can be no doubt that the order Ext. P3 passed by the Superintendent of Police cannot be regarded as a proper or satisfactory disposal of the representation put in by the petitioner requesting for the correction of his age supported as it was by the birth register extract issued by the Calicut Corporation and also the certified extract from the voters' list produced along with Ext. P2. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Stale of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) . Binapani Dei, AIR. 1967 SC. 1269, the determination of the question relating to the date of birth of an officer is not to be done arbitrarily but only in a manner consonant with the basic concept of justice; that is because as a result of such determination civil consequences are likely to be visited on the public servant concerned. One of the basic requirements of natural justice is that the order, although administrative in character, must be a speaking order and should state the reasons in support of the conclusion mentioned therein. It is also necessary that the authority charged with the duty of taking a decision on the matter should give the applicant a proper opportunity to prove his case and should also give due consideration to the evidence brought before it. See State of Assam v. Duksha Prasad Deka, (1970) II S.C.W.R. 845. Neither of these requirements had been complied with by the Superintended of Police when he passed Ext. P3. See State of Assam v. Duksha Prasad Deka, (1970) II S.C.W.R. 845. Neither of these requirements had been complied with by the Superintended of Police when he passed Ext. P3. No reason whatever is stated by him as to why the birth certificate produced by the petitioner could not be considered "as an authenticated document" to prove his date of birth. No advertence also is seen made to the petitioner's assertion regarding the identity of his parents or to the fact of his being the only male child born to them nor even to the evidence produced by the petitioner in the shape of the extract from the voters' list which would tend to substantiate the case put forward by him regarding the identity of his parents. The order Ext. P3 did not therefore comply with the requirements of law and was clearly defective. 5. Admittedly, no orders have been so far passed by the State Government on the petition Ext. P4 presented by the writ petitioner before the Home Minister. It is however stated in the counter-affidavit that the Government have already come to the conclusion that the request put forward by 'the petitioner cannot be granted and that formal orders have not been issued by the Government only on account of the pendency of this writ petition. The reasons mentioned in the counter-affidavit as those which weighed with the Government in coming to the above conclusion are enumerated in Para.4 of the counter-affidavit dated the 12th March, 1970 and it is necessary to extract that paragraph which reads: "It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted for the following reasons: (a) The date of birth was noted in the official records only verifying the school certificate produced by the petitioner himself at the time of enlistment. (b) The petitioner has himself noted in the verification roll in his own handwriting that his date of birth is 5111914. He has also given a statement -that the facts mentioned in the verification roll is correct. (e) The petitioner did not produce any authenticated document to prove that the date of birth noted in the service book is incorrect. He produced a birth certificate issued by the Calicut Corporation. He has also given a statement -that the facts mentioned in the verification roll is correct. (e) The petitioner did not produce any authenticated document to prove that the date of birth noted in the service book is incorrect. He produced a birth certificate issued by the Calicut Corporation. But there was no record to show that the date of birth noted in the birth certificate relates to the petitioner." It is not possible to accept reasons (a) and (b), by themselves, as valid or adequate grounds for rejecting an application for the correction of the entry relating to the date of birth of a Government servant as contained in his service register unless it be that as a matter of uniform practice or policy the Government have decided not to entertain or consider any such requests. In almost every case where such a request is made there would necessarily be the fact that at the time of opening the service book the Government servant concerned would have signed the said register confirming the correctness of the entry therein. It cannot be disputed that in numerous cases such applications have been entertained and disposed of on the merits after due investigation of the truth or otherwise of the claim put forward by the concerned Government servants. There is no reason why the petitioner should be singled out for discriminatory treatment by putting this fact against him as debarring him from making any prayer for a rectification of the alleged mistake which according to him had crept in at the time of making the original entry in the service book. 6. The only other reason mentioned in Para.4 of the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner did not produce any "authenticated document" to prove that the date of birth noted in the service book was incorrect, and that there was no record to show that the date of birth noted in the. birth certificate issued by the Calicut Corporation relates to the petitioner. Any such conclusion can legitimately be arrived at only after due investigation into the truth of the case set out by the petitioner that his father's name was Choyi, that his mother was Nalukudi Parambil Keerachi alias Meenakshi, that they were residing in Kalathinkunnu Amsom within the limits of the Calicut Municipality and that the entries in the birth register extract in Ext. P7 relate to the birth of their only male child, namely the petitioner. Rules of natural justice and fairplay require that if in the course of any such investigation any material came into the possession of the deciding authority which prima facie improbabilised the contention put forward by the applicant a chance should be given to him to make his explanation in regard thereto. It is equally necessary that adequate opportunity should be given to the party who has put forward the case to substantiate his version in case the authority is not satisfied with the material initially produced by him along with his application. It does not appear from the counter-affidavit that before the Government arrived at the conclusion which it is stated to have come to, the above procedure was followed. 7. In regard to the representation made by the petitioner before the Director of Public Instruction, the Government Pleader stated that "orders rejecting it has already been passed by the 3rd respondent and also communicated to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has not filed any counter-affidavit and counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he is not aware of any such order having been communicated to his client. A copy of the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction is available in the file produced before me by the Government Pleader and it reads: "To Sri T.Sukumaran, Head Constable No. 443, Town Police Station, Kozhikode. Sir, Sub:-Edn- correction id date of birth in school records. Ref:-Your application dated. 14-10-1969 Your request for correction of date of birth in the school records of GUPS, Vellyif is inadmissible as per existing rules and orders." No discussion is necessary to show that this communication does not at all satisfy the requirements of a speaking order. As already observed earlier in this judgment, it is obligatory on the part of an authority dealing with a request of the kind made by the petitioner to conform to the basic requirements of natural justice and it should pass an order containing reasons in support of its conclusion. In as much as these mandatory requirements have not been complied with the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction cannot be regarded as a valid disposal of the petition evidenced by Ext. P6. 8. In as much as these mandatory requirements have not been complied with the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction cannot be regarded as a valid disposal of the petition evidenced by Ext. P6. 8. In the result, there will be a direction to the State Government to dispose of the petition evidenced by Ext. P4 in the light of the observations contained in this judgment untrammelled by any conclusions which they may have already arrived at as stated in the counter-affidavit and to pass final orders after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the case put forward by him. The circumstance that the Director of Public Instruction has rejected the petitioner's request under the order referred to above should not also weigh with the State Government in view of the invalid nature of that order. In as much as the matter is being directed to be considered by the State Government I do not think that a simultaneous investigation by the Director of Public Instruction is necessary unless it be that the Government considers that the matter should be got investigated through the agency of the Director of Public Instruction. Until the representation Ext. P4 is finally disposed of by the State Government in accordance with the direction given above, the status quo as on today will continue, subject, of course to the contingency of the petitioner being liable to be retired from service on 17-1-1971 which would be his date of retirement on superannuation even if the contentions put forward by him in Ext. P4 are accepted. 9. The original petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no direction regarding costs.