Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. This is yet another case for carrying out correction of date of birth in the service records. Large number of cases are coming before this Court as well as before the Government for carrying out necessary correction of date of birth in the service records on the eve of retirement of the employees. 2. In the year 1991, Government felt the growing tendency on the part of Government employees to get the date of birth corrected when they are about to retire, had to be discouraged. Accordingly, Government reviewed the entire matter with due regard to the system followed in the case of Central Government employees. Government felt eventhough a person who joins service is aware of his date of birth at the time of entry into service, still an opportunity be given to him to make correction of his date of birth in bona fide cases. Earlier Government orders prescribed that a government employee can apply for correction of date of birth entered in his Service Book upto the period beyond two years preceding his retirement reckoned with reference to the date of birth as originally entered in the Service Book. Government felt the same would cause considerable difficulties to the Administrative Department, as well as for those who are aspiring for promotion. Government therefore, modified the earlier orders and issued an order dated 30.12.1991 stating that applications for correction of date of birth if any needed in the case of a Government employee shall be made within five years of one's entry into service. In the case of those who have already crossed that limit, one year time from the date of that order was allowed, provided they apply beyond the two year preceding retirement, reckoned with reference to the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book. It was ordered that the applications for correction of date of birth in Service Book shall be submitted to Government in the Administrative Department concerned through proper channel. The conditions that such applications, in the case of those who have attended a School, shall be supported by attested copies of SSLC/SSC book or extract of school record as corrected and that mere correction of date of birth in the school record does not entitle the employee for consequential correction of date of birth in Service Book. The conditions that such applications, in the case of those who have attended a School, shall be supported by attested copies of SSLC/SSC book or extract of school record as corrected and that mere correction of date of birth in the school record does not entitle the employee for consequential correction of date of birth in Service Book. Government has to consider each case on its merits, and pass orders. It was ordered that applications for condonation of delay and for entertainment of applications in relaxation of the condition regarding time limit should be summarily rejected. 3. Petitioner is now working as High School Assistant. Her date of birth was recorded in the service record as 25.2.1117 (ME) corresponding to 11.10.1941. On the basis of the Government order dated 30.12.1991, she sent a letter to the Minister for Education, evidenced by Ext. P2, stating that she is applying on the basis of the above mentioned Government order. She wanted to get the service record corrected after getting the SSLC book corrected. It was stated application for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book had been submitted before the Commissioner for Government Examinations. It is pointed out as soon as the SSLC book is corrected, the same would be submitted before the Government. Letter was stated to be received by the Government on 18.7.1992. 4. Petitioner then submitted an application before the Commissioner for Government Examinations evidenced by Ext. P3 dated 4.9.1992. Application was stated to be received by the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations on 27.9.1992. The application for correction of date of birth in the school records was belated. Consequently, petitioner took up the matter before the Government and Government condoned the delay and accorded sanction under R.3 of Chap. VI of the Kerala Education Rules for submitting the application for correction of date of birth of the petitioner, vide G.O. Rt. No. 5354/92/G.Edn. dated 30.12.1992. Subsequently, petitioner's application was considered by the Commissioner for Government Examinations who passed order dated 30.8.1996, to carry out the necessary correction of date of birth in the school records. The Secretary for Government Examinations was directed to make necessary corrections in the entries regarding date of birth in the SSLC book. 5. It is stated on 3.10.1996, petitioner submitted the order dated 30.8.1996 before the Secretary for Government Examinations for carrying out necessary correction in the SSLC book. The Secretary for Government Examinations was directed to make necessary corrections in the entries regarding date of birth in the SSLC book. 5. It is stated on 3.10.1996, petitioner submitted the order dated 30.8.1996 before the Secretary for Government Examinations for carrying out necessary correction in the SSLC book. It is the petitioner's case that so far Secretary did not take any action on Ext. P5 request. 6. Petitioner then approached this Court and filed O.P.No. 2974 of 1997. Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 18.2.1997 directing the State Government to dispose of petitioner's application dated 10.6.1992 as well as Ext. P5 letter dated 3.10.1996. Government have now rejected petitioner's application vide Ext. P8 order dated 1.4.1997. It was stated that petitioner had submitted her request on 10.6.1992 to the Minister for Education which was prior to the correction of date of birth in school records and also not through proper channel. It was also stated application for correction of date of birth in service book with all required, documents, i.e., valid application, was received in Government only on 1.1.1997, which is belated. 7. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order Ext. P8, and therefore, has approached this Court. The main contention raised by senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Kurian Joseph, is that first respondent has committed a grave error in not properly considering the petitioner's application. It is his case that application was submitted in time. Reference was made to Ext. P2 dated 10.6.1992. It was pointed out application for carrying out necessary correction in the SSLC book was submitted on 4.9.1992. However, the Commissioner for Government Examinations passed orders only on 30.8.1996 for carrying out the necessary correction of date of birth in the SSLC book. It is therefore, his case that the delay is on the part of the Commissioner for Government Examinations. It is also contended that first respondent has not properly understood the scope of Government order dated 30.12.1991 which enables an employee to get his date of birth corrected, provided he submits his application within one year from the date of the Government order. It is his case application was submitted in time, and therefore, his application should have been entertained and entries regarding date of birth in the service records ought to have been corrected in the light of Ext. P4 order. It is his case application was submitted in time, and therefore, his application should have been entertained and entries regarding date of birth in the service records ought to have been corrected in the light of Ext. P4 order. Counsel also submitted in similar situation, Government have corrected the date of birth of another employee, and he was allowed to continue in service on the basis of corrected date of birth in the SSLC records. Reference was made to Ext. P6 order. It is his case that petitioner is also similarly placed, and therefore, she is entitled to get an order in the nature of Ext. P6. 8. Government have issued executive order dated 30.12.1991 so as to curb the tendency of filing applications by the Government employees to get the date of birth corrected when they are about to retire. Procedure for submitting applications is also stated in the said Government order. Reason for issuing such an order, and the necessity of complying with the procedure laid down in the said order strictly, are discernible from the order itself. The order was necessitated due to the growing tendency of Government employees to get date of birth corrected on the eve of their retirement. It is pertinent to note the need for correction should not arise at all, once one's date of birth is entered in the service book because it is the date furnished by him for selection to the post and it is again based on the proof furnished by the employee himself. One realises his date of birth in his life time on the number of occasions, such as when he gets his SSLC book or secures extract from School Admission Register. He is also aware of his date of birth in modern times, when he applies for driving licence, or when he applies for passport, and on various occasions. Therefore, it cannot be said that a person is unaware of his date of birth on all those occasions. One is also aware of his date of birth, when he applies for higher studies and also when he applies for various posts. In several cases, the date of birth in the SSLC book or college records is very relevant for applying for various jobs. Certain notifications restrict the age limit also. One is also aware of his date of birth, when he applies for higher studies and also when he applies for various posts. In several cases, the date of birth in the SSLC book or college records is very relevant for applying for various jobs. Certain notifications restrict the age limit also. In certain cases, employees enter service on the basis of date of birth entered in the SSLC book. In certain cases employees do not apply for the post because of age restriction. For instance, if the applications are invited from persons between the age group of 18 and 25, and if, on the basis of date of birth entered in the SSLC book, he is over-aged he cannot apply, and if he is under aged also, he cannot apply. Therefore, date of birth is very crucial even in the matter of appointment. Therefore, having secured the appointment on the basis of date of birth entered in the school records, it is not just and fair to have it corrected later on for getting the service extended. Therefore, there may be cases where, if the service book is ultimately corrected on the basis of the corrected date of birth in the SSLC book, the employee could not have even applied for the post due to age restriction. It shows the importance of the date of birth entered in the admission register as well as in the SSLC Book, which obviously determines the future of a person at the time of applying for a job., 9. In many cases persons who enter service or are continuing in service taking note of their future prospects. Therefore age of retirement of seniors will be closely watched by juniors so as to get promotion. Cases also not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. Therefore, if a senior gets his date of birth corrected at the fag end of his career, and continues in service, that will affect the promotion chances of his juniors as well. This aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in Secy. & Commr. V. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155. 10. Looking at the above mentioned principles, needless to say that Government order has to be strictly followed. This aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in Secy. & Commr. V. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155. 10. Looking at the above mentioned principles, needless to say that Government order has to be strictly followed. As per the Government order dated 30.12.1991, an application submitted by the employee shall be supported by attested copies of SSLC/SSC book or extract of school record as corrected and that mere correction of date of birth in the school record does not entitle the employee for consequential correction of date of birth in service book. Therefore, the mere fact that petitioner submitted an application within one year from the date of the Government order would not suffice. Petitioner has to submit the application with all relevant documents which are necessary to establish his case. Those evidence which the petitioner produces should amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Petitioner cannot put in some application or representation before the Government, and then go on collecting evidence. It he is relying on the date of birth as corrected in the SSLC book, he has to produce the same along with the application at least within one year from the date of the Government order. In other words, Government have given one year time to the employees to collect evidence and prove their correct date of birth. It is also for the petitioner to produce whatever documents necessary for carrying out the correction of date of birth in the service records, within the stipulated time. Contention of counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has applied for correction of date of birth before the Commissioner for Government Examinations in time and the delay had occurred at the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations, I am of opinion, cannot be countenanced. It is the responsibility of the employee to see that all documents are collected and produced along with the application within one year from the date of the Government order. Therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that since the delay had occurred in the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations, her application should have been considered by the Government cannot be accepted. 11. Therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that since the delay had occurred in the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations, her application should have been considered by the Government cannot be accepted. 11. Government order itself says that applications for condonation of delay and for entertainment of applications in relaxation of the condition regarding time limit shall be summarily rejected, which will evidently show that Government wanted to comply with the procedure mentioned therein strictly. However, it is unfortunate to note, having laid down such a procedure, Government themselves have violated the same in certain cases. I am not expressing any opinion with regard to Ext. P6 order dated 30.6.1995 where in Government have condoned the delay in submitting the application. Government, in fact, reviewed their earlier order rejecting the employee's application mentioned in Ext. P6. Since the said employee is not in the party array, it is not just and proper to examine the said order. However, I hasten to add that when Government issues an order and lays down procedure, Government should strictly follow the said procedure. In very many cases, this Court had occasion to note that even overlooking the conditions laid down in the Government order dated 30.12.1991, petitions for condonation of delay are being entertained, and orders are passed for carrying out correction of date of birth in the service records, inspite of the fact that Government have specifically stated that applications for condonation of delay shall be summarily rejected. Needless to say when the Government follows a particular procedure, that procedure has to be applied uniformly to all, otherwise Government's action would be arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. People will lose faith in Government machinery if different yardsticks are adopted in entertaining the applications. I am sure Government will take note of this fact and would apply the Government order uniformly to all Government employees alike. , 12. In the instant case, reason stated by the Government for rejecting the petitioner's application was that her application was not submitted through proper channel. As per the Government order, all applications for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book should be supported by required documents. According to Government, petitioner has not submitted her application with all relevant documents within time. As per the Government order, all applications for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book should be supported by required documents. According to Government, petitioner has not submitted her application with all relevant documents within time. According to me, the reasons stated by the Government for rejecting the petitioner's application are in strict compliance with the Government order dated 30.12.1991, and also on the basis of principles stated hereinbefore. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, Original Petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.