JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner seeks to quash Exts. P-3 and P-7 orders of the Government by which his application for correction of his date of birth was rejected. The petitioner at the time when he filed this writ petition was an. Assistant Excise Commissioner at Kozhikode. Since the filing of this writ petition, as the interim stay obtained by the petitioner was vacated by the final orders passed on 28th July, 1972 on C.M.P. No. 9644 of 1972, the petitioner has retired from service. It was recorded in the final order on the said C.M.P. that the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that in case the writ petition is decided in the petitioner's favour and this court holds that the petitioner is entitled to be retained in service beyond 25th July, 1972, the Government would forthwith take necessary action to reinstate the petitioner in service with the benefit of full salary allowances and continuity of service within a period not exceeding one week from the date of judgment. The petitioner entered service as a clerk in the Travancore State on 30-1-1119 M.B. (some time in 1944). He served in the Travancore-Cocnin State and later in the Kerala State, and became an Assistant Commissioner of Excise on 24-6-1970. His date of birth as given in the service register is 11-12-1092 M.E., corresponding to 26-7-1917, which should place his date of retirement as 26-7-1972 According to the petitioner this date of birth was a mistake and his correct date of birth is what is entered in the primary school register, viz. 2-6-1005 M.E. When the petitioner obtained Transfer Certificate from the primary school for the purpose of joining the High School, according to him, the date of birth of a pupil lower down in the rolls was mistakenly noted in his Transfer Certificate, and this mistake was copied in to the High School Register and thence into the Service Register. 2. Ext. P-15 G.O. dated 17th December 1960, stated in supersesion of the previous orders that no application for correction of date of birth will thereafter be allowed, of the entries in regard to age in the service books or in the school registers, or in school certificates, unless it is a correction of a clerical error By Ext. P. 16 G. dated 23rd September 1961, a verbal correction was made in Ext. P. 16 G. dated 23rd September 1961, a verbal correction was made in Ext. P. 15 G.O. Ext. P-17 G.O. dated 27th June 1962 ordered that correction of date of birth in service books in respect of Goverment servants who entered service in the former Travancore Cochin State before last August 1950 (petitioner belongs to this category) will be allowed only if the correction is not to the advantage of the person concerned; and that in the vase of all others, applications for correction will be considered by the Government on the merits of each case. Ext. P-18 G.O. dated 27th March 1965 is by way of amplification of Ext. 17 GO, and laid down what documents the Government would consider as satisfactory proof of the date of birth. Finally came Ext. P-19 G.O. dated 22nd January 1972. It referred to Exts. P-17 and P-18 G.Os. and noted that it was seen that in certain cases applications for correction of date of birth are made by Government servants on the eve of their retirement. It then proceeded to state. “Government have examined the matter and are pleased to order that except in the exceptional cases where it has been adequately madr out that the concerned officer did not and could not have an opportunity to make his request, requests for correction or alteration of dates of birth of Government servants will not be allowed within two years of the date of their retirement.” These (Exts. P-5 to P-19) are the five relevant G.Os. produced in regard to the correction of the date of birth of Government servants. 3. The petitioner has alleged in Ground E at page 10 of the writ petition that it was only after Ext. P-19 G.O. that he thought that he could make an application for correction of age and that the limitation contained in Ext. P-19 of making the application within two years of retirement cannot possibly apply to his case, as the order was issued only in January 1972 and the petitioner's retirement itself was to be on 26-7-1972. 4. In the above background, the petitioner made Ext. P-1 application dated 15-6-1972 to the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Trivandrum (the Director of Public Instruction) praying to conduct an enquiry, to give him a personal hearing, and alter the date of birth in his E.S.L.C. Book as 2nd Makaram 1095. 4. In the above background, the petitioner made Ext. P-1 application dated 15-6-1972 to the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Trivandrum (the Director of Public Instruction) praying to conduct an enquiry, to give him a personal hearing, and alter the date of birth in his E.S.L.C. Book as 2nd Makaram 1095. He stated that he is prepared to produce his horoscope and other evidence at the time of hearing if required. Ext. P-2 is copy of the application, also dated 15-16-1972, by the petitioner to the Secretary to Government, practically on the same lines as Ext. P-1. By that petition he prayed that the Government may be pleased to alter the date of birth in his E.S.L.C. Book as 2nd Makaram 1095; and to allow him to continue in service. He referred to Ext. P-1 application and prayed that till a decision is rendered by the Commissioner for Government Examinations on his application (copy enclosed as Annexure A), the Government may be pleased to stay his retirement from service on 27th July, 1972. By Ext. P-3 order dated 7-7-1972 the Government rejected Ext. P-2 application. By Ext. P-4 order dated 12-7-1972 the Commissioner for Government Examinations found after enquiry that it was established that there was a clear case of clerical error committed by the Headmaster of the Government U.P. School, Koothattukulam at the time of issue of the Transfer Certificate to the petitioner, and that this clerical error was responsible for the mistake in the entry of the date of birth of the petitioner in the E.S.L.C. Book. He accordingly gave sanction to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in his E.S.L.C. Book. It would be seen that before passing Exhibit P-4 order the Commissioner had conducted an enquiry and had examined the copy of the admission register of the petitioner in the primary school (Copy Exhibit P. 8) his admission register in the High School (copy Ext. P-9) and other documents, Exts. P-10 to P-12 are the notices issued by the Commissioners in connection with his enquiry. Emboldened, perhaps, by this order of the Commissioner for Government Examinations, the petitioner again made an application (the original of Ext. P. 5 dated 13-7-1972) to the Secretary to the Government drawing attention to the proceedings of the Commissioner for the Government Examinations and praying that his date of birth in the service register may be corrected. Emboldened, perhaps, by this order of the Commissioner for Government Examinations, the petitioner again made an application (the original of Ext. P. 5 dated 13-7-1972) to the Secretary to the Government drawing attention to the proceedings of the Commissioner for the Government Examinations and praying that his date of birth in the service register may be corrected. This was rejected by Ext. P. 7, order dated 21-7-1972. 5. There are thus two orders of rejection Exts. P. 3 and P. 7. Ext. P. 3 has stated the ground of rejection as that the request of the petitioner for correction of date of birth was belated. Ext. P. 7 referred to the two G.Os. Exts. P-17 and P-19 and merely stated that the petitioner's request for correction of his age is devoid of merits in the light of the Government orders cited. Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent has stated that the petitioner has no absolute right to correct his date of birth in the service register, that the same is to be exercised within a reasonable time and that the Government is empowered to issue orders directing that those who had reasonable opportunities to correct their dates of births in the service records would not be given any further chances or that applications for correction of dates of birth would not be entertained unless submitted within a certain period of the date of superannuation. I understand the impugned orders Exts. P-3 and P-7 as rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that the same was not made within two years of the date of retirement as stated in Ext. P-19. I understand the Government also to take the same stand in the counter affidavit, and in particular in paragraph 10 thereof. 6. That the Government is within its rights in prescribing a time limit within which applications for correction of age in service records have to be made, seems to be well established and was hardly disputed. It is enough to refer to State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka ( (1970) 3 SCC 624 : A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 173) and also to the unreported judgement of my learned brother Isaac, J. in O.P. No. 4498 of 1969 (reported in 1971 K.L.R. 458). In the Supreme Court case the time limit was fixed by a statutory rule. It is enough to refer to State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka ( (1970) 3 SCC 624 : A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 173) and also to the unreported judgement of my learned brother Isaac, J. in O.P. No. 4498 of 1969 (reported in 1971 K.L.R. 458). In the Supreme Court case the time limit was fixed by a statutory rule. In the case decided by my learned brother Iaac, J. the condition fixed by an executive order (Ext. P-17 herein) was sustained. 7. The petitioner's counsel contended that the time limit fixed by Ext. P-19 G.O. was incapable of application in his case, because, as one who entered service in the Travancore-Cochin State before 1-8-1950 he had no right to apply for correction of age in the service records except where such correction was not to his advantage, a rather doubtful and perhaps impossible contingency. Being so, it was contended that he obtained the right for the first time only by Ext. P-19 G.O. and therefore he was entitled to regard his case as one of those exceptional cases mentioned in Ext. P. 19 itself, where he “did not and could not have an opportunity to make his request for correction” earlier. It was further contended that Ext. P-19 itself having been issued only on 22-1-1972 and the petitioner's retirement (according to the date of birth in his service register) having to be on 26th July, 1972, it was impossible to apply within two years of retirement. These aspects certainly require at least to be considered, before the petitioner's application for correction can be turned down summarily, as was done by the impugned orders Exts. P-3 and P-7. I Counsel for the respondents contended that Exhibit P-19 G.O. conferred no new right upon persons like the petitioner, over and above what had been conceded to them by Ext. P-17 G.O. For this reason if was contended that the rejection of the petitioner's application for correction was proper and valid. It is enough to state that this, as I understand, was not the ground on which the petitioner's applications were rejected by Exts. P-3 and B-7. Nor, as I understand has this ground been pleaded in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent. It is enough to state that this, as I understand, was not the ground on which the petitioner's applications were rejected by Exts. P-3 and B-7. Nor, as I understand has this ground been pleaded in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent. I am therefore not disposed to write a fresh order of rejection for the 1st respondent and to sustain it on a ground different from what has been given in Exts. P. 3 and P-7 or pleaded in the counter affidavit. I do not however express any opinion as to whether Ex. P-19 conferred any new or additional right on persons like the petitioner to apply for correction of age, apart from what is contained in Ext. P-17. 8. Before closing one other argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner has to be noticed. It was contended that although a limit for making the application for correction within two years of retirement was fixed in Ext. P-19, actually in several instances applications for correction of age have been entertained which were not filed beyond the said limit and favourable orders upon such applications have been passed. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner he has catalogued these instances in sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 5. It is quite unnecessary to examine these cases serially. Counsel appearing for the respondents has attempted the task ably, and I am satisfied that not one of these cases was after Ext. P-19 order in the sense that in all these cases the applications for correction of age were made before 22-1-1972, the date of Ext. P-19 G.O. For that reason, these cases can hardly be said to constitute exemptions from the limitation enjoined by the G.O. That apart assuming, without deciding that in these cases the Government or the authorities concerned had relaxed the rigour of the time limit set down in Ext. P-19 G.O. that is no reason for the petitioner, as a matter of right, to compel by mandamus the exercise of similar indulgence in his favour. No case of discrimination can certainly be built on the basis of these instances catalogued in paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit. 9. As, however, the only ground of rejection given in Exts. P-3 and P-7 is untenable, and as the petitioner's contentions deserve consideration, as explained earlier, I allow this original petition; quash Exts. No case of discrimination can certainly be built on the basis of these instances catalogued in paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit. 9. As, however, the only ground of rejection given in Exts. P-3 and P-7 is untenable, and as the petitioner's contentions deserve consideration, as explained earlier, I allow this original petition; quash Exts. P-3 and P-7 orders, and direct the Government to reconsider the petitioner applications for correction of age and pass orders thereon in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained herein. There will be no order as to costs. Carbon copies of this judgment will be furnished forthwith to the counsel appearing in the case on payment of the requisite charges. 10. Petition allowed.