Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 151 (KER)

SAHADEVAN v. STATE OF KERALA

1987-03-25

BHASKARAN NAMBIAR, MALIMATH

body1987
Judgment :- Malimath. G. J. The petitioner made an application for correcting his date of birth entered in the service register wherein' his date of birth is shown as 12-5-1107 M.E. The case of the petitioner was that he has got his date of birth corrected in the S.S.L.C. register and therefore a consequential correction in the service register should be made so that he has the benefit of remaining in service for longer period. That application was rejected on the ground that the correction of date of birth in the school records does not cast an obligation on the Government to carry out that correction in the service records as a matter of course and that the Government has the right to consider the merits of each case independently subject to the condition stipulated in GO. (MS) No. 39/79/PD dated 22-1-1972. It is made clear in the said order that except in exceptional cases where it has been adequately made out that the concerned officer did not and could not have an opportunity to make his request for correction or alteration of date of birth, a Govt. servant will cot be allowed to make a request for correction of his date of birth in the service register, with its two years of the date of his retirement. The Government has noted that the application for correction of the date of birth in the service register of She petitioner was made en 12-9-1986 at the fag end of his service as be is required to retire on 31-3-1987 according to the age noted in the service register. The Government found that no explanation for the delay Les been given and no reason for net applying for collection of the date of birth in time has been furnished by the petitioner. It is in this background that the application has been rejected. It is the said order that was challenged before the learned single Judge. The learned single judge has referred this case for admission to the Division Bench. Hence we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner for admission. 2. This case is fully covered by the decision rendered by us in 1987 (1) KLT. 882 decided on the 17th July, 1986. Identical issue was examined in that case with reference to the relevant provisions of the Government order and the relevant statutory provisions. Hence we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner for admission. 2. This case is fully covered by the decision rendered by us in 1987 (1) KLT. 882 decided on the 17th July, 1986. Identical issue was examined in that case with reference to the relevant provisions of the Government order and the relevant statutory provisions. This court after examination has come to the conclusion that the correction of the date of birth to the S.S.L.C. register does not automatically entitle the applicant to get his date of birth corrected in the service register. It has been pointed out that the Government has to consider the question on merits including the question as to whether that application was filed within two years before the date of retirement and as to whether there is justifiable reason for entertaining the belated application. It is therefore in the realm of appreciation of facts, the question whether the belated application should be entertained. The Government having found that no good reasons have been given for entertaining be belated Application and that it docs not merit being examined, it is not possible to interfere with the said finding of the State Government, 3. The petitioner however submitted relying upon the decision in 1987 (1) KLT. 558 that in a situation like this where the delay has been condoned by the State Government in the matter of making corrections in S.S.L.C. records, the Stats Government if it is not inclined to accept the belated application made for making entry in the service register it should give an opportunity to the applicant of explaining the reasons for the delay. With respect, we find it difficult to agree with the reasoning adopted in 1987 (1) KLT. 558. The same is clearly inconsistent with the Division Bench ruling rendered by us in 1987 (1) KLT. 882. Government order, G.O. (Ms) No. 123/75/ PD. dated 16-6-1975 has been issued after examining such problems where applicants make requests for correction of the date of birth in the service register after obtaining correction in the S.S.L.C. register. 558. The same is clearly inconsistent with the Division Bench ruling rendered by us in 1987 (1) KLT. 882. Government order, G.O. (Ms) No. 123/75/ PD. dated 16-6-1975 has been issued after examining such problems where applicants make requests for correction of the date of birth in the service register after obtaining correction in the S.S.L.C. register. It has been made clear therein that mere correction of the date of birth in the school records by the Government or by the Commissioner for Government Examinations does not entitle the Government servant to get automatic correction of the date of birth in the service register and the Government reserved the right to independently take into account the conditions stipulated in the G.O. dated 22-1-1972. Therefore the government servants were put on notice that they will not be entitled to automatic correction of the dace of birth in the service register consequent upon their succeeding in getting the entry corrected in the S.S.L.C. register by resort to appropriate proceedings. It is necessary to point out that the considerations that weigh with the Government at the time of correction of the date of birth in the S.S.L.C. register or in the school records are likely to be different from considerations that weigh in the matter of correcting the date of birth in the service register. There are several factors that come into play in regard to the correction of the date of birth in the service register. It is therefore that the State Government advisedly stated in the order of 1975 that there cannot be any automatic correction of the date of birth in the service register. It is necessary to point out that on the representation regarding age made by the applicant at the time of recruitment that he would have been selected for appointment into Government service. In many cases the age could have been the relvant factor which would have tilted the balance in the matter of recruitment to a particular post. It is also not unlikely that many persons would not have applied for the post if it is known that a younger person has already entered the services as he may not have future prospects and vice versa. These are matters which may weigh in mind in dealing with matters of delay in filing the application for correcting the date of birth. These are matters which may weigh in mind in dealing with matters of delay in filing the application for correcting the date of birth. It is not a question of abstract proposition but the question of locking'-into the whole matter in its proper perspective for, it may have repercussions not only in regard to the concerned person but no regard to other government servants. It is for this reason that the State Government has reserved its right to judge each case on merits and decide for itself as to whether the correction should be allowed to be carried. out in the service register having regard 'to the relevant factors. Hence it is not possible to take the view that the State Government has committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground of delay. For the reasons stated above this Original Petition fails and is dismissed. Let a photostat copy of this judgment be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on usual terms. Dismissed.