P. v. Varghese VS State of Kerala — 1997 DIGILAW 228 (KER)

JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioner is now working as Assistant Engineer in the Service of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to correct the petitioner's date of birth as 10.9.1994, and also a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P9 order rejecting the petitioner's request for correction of date of birth in his service records. 2. Petitioner is due to retire on 30.9.1997, going by the entries made in the service records. The date of birth entered in the service records of the petitioner is 9.9.1942. According to petitioner the said entry is wrongly made, since incorrect date of birth happened to be entered in the SSLC book. Petitioner submits his correct date of birth is 10.9.1944 and he need retire only on 30.9.1999. 3. Government issued an order dated 30.12.1991 pertaining to correction of date of birth of employees in Government service. Government noticed the growing tendency on the part of the Government employees to get the date of birth corrected when they are about to retire from service. Eventhough Government felt there was no necessity of even granting any opportunity to the employees for getting the date of birth corrected in the service records, Government still thought an opportunity be granted in bona fide cases. In modification of the various earlier orders, it was ordered that applications for correction of date of birth should be submitted to Government in the Administrative Department concerned, through proper channel, within a period of five years from the date of entry into service. However, in the case of those who are already in service, they have to submit the applications within a period of one year from the date of the Government order, provided they apply beyond the two year preceding retirement, reckoned with reference to the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book. It is also provided in the said order, applications should be supported by attested copies of the SSLC/ SSC Book or extract of school record as corrected. Applications for condonation of delay and for entertainment of applications in relaxation of the condition regarding time were ordered to be rejected summarily. 4. The above mentioned Government order was adopted by the Electricity Board by Ext. Applications for condonation of delay and for entertainment of applications in relaxation of the condition regarding time were ordered to be rejected summarily. 4. The above mentioned Government order was adopted by the Electricity Board by Ext. P4 order dated 24.11.1992 Those persons who are in the service of the Board had to submit their applications on or before 24.11.1992. 5. Petitioner did not apply for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book as per the Kerala Education Rules in time. Consequently he approached the Government for condonation of delay in submitting the application for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book. Ext. P1 is the order dated 3.10.1992 condoning the delay in submitting application for correction of date of birth in the SSLC. Later petitioner submitted an application 3.9.1993 before the Commissioner for Government Examinations for carrying out the necessary correction of date of birth in the SSLC book. An order was passed by the Commissioner for Government Examinations on 20.1.1996 according sanction for correction of date of birth from 9.9.1942 to 10.9.1944 in the school records. Petitioner then submitted an application before the Board on 3.4.1996 through proper channel. He also submitted the order of the Commissioner for Government Examinations. A copy of the corrected SSLC book was also forwarded to the Chief Engineer of the Board. Matter was considered by the Board, and the Board declined to entertain the petitioner's application, and the same was rejected by Ext. P9 order. 6. Contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that Board is not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application. Counsel stated application for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book was submitted on 3.9.1993. In fact the Government condoned the delay in submitting the application before the Commissioner. However, the same was got corrected only on 20.1.1996, when the Commissioner passed the order. It is contended the delay occurred at the office of the Commissioner, and therefore, Board is not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application on the plea that the same is belated. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. They maintained the stand that petitioner ought to have submitted application along with the corrected SSLC book on or before 24.11.1992. It is stated petitioner submitted his application only in 1996, and therefore the Board is not obliged to entertain the said application. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. They maintained the stand that petitioner ought to have submitted application along with the corrected SSLC book on or before 24.11.1992. It is stated petitioner submitted his application only in 1996, and therefore the Board is not obliged to entertain the said application. I find force in the contention of counsel for the Board. 8. It is evident from the Government order, Ext. P3 that a last opportunity was given to employees in service to submit their applications within one year from the date of the government order. In fact, while issuing the said order, Government even felt there was no justification even allowing the correction of date of birth in the service records. Government noted the growing tendency on the part of the Government employees to get the date of birth corrected when they are about to retire from service. 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 the employee for selection to the post and it is again based on the proof therefor furnished by the employee himself that the entry is made. In fact the date of birth entered in the service records of an employee would be pointer to employees who entered service subsequently so as to judge their future promotions. Cases are many when persons who enter service would ascertain their future chances of promotion in the department. Therefore the date of birth given by an employee at the time of entry into service has got significance not only for him but also for the persons who enter service subsequently. In fact the Supreme Court had occasion to consider these matters in its decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. T. V. Gopalan, 1994 (6) SCC 302 . Supreme Court ordered that a Government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. Supreme Court also noted in Burn Standard Co. Supreme Court ordered that a Government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. Supreme Court also noted in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar, ( 1995 (4) SCC 172 that a sudden and belated change may upset the legitimate expectation of others who may have joined service hoping that on the retirement of senior on the movement in the hierarchy. In fact it visits the juniors with irreparable injury, and that they would be denied promotions. 9. Importance of date of birth given by an employee at the time of entry into service, need not be over emphasised. The date of birth is very crucial at the time of considering the application for various employment. Several notifications fix age limit while inviting applications. Only those who are within the said age limit can apply for the post. There may be many cases where if the date of birth is corrected after one's entry into service, going by that corrected date of birth, they would not have been considered for appointment. The date of birth of an applicant is also very relevant when two persons obtain the same marks. At that time, a person who is older in age is preferred. In other words, going by the date of birth given at the time of one's entry into service they would have got some advantage. Having obtained those advantages at the time of entry into service, it is unfair to have the date of birth corrected on the eve of retirement. In fact those principles might have weighed with the Government, when they stated in Ext. P3 order that 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 the employee for selection to the post and it is again based on the proof therefore furnished by the employee himself that the entry is made. 10. Government order itself states that the Government would not entertain petition for condonation of delay, and those petitions would be summarily rejected. In fact the procedure for submission of application has been stated in the said Government order itself. 10. Government order itself states that the Government would not entertain petition for condonation of delay, and those petitions would be summarily rejected. In fact the procedure for submission of application has been stated in the said Government order itself. Government order stipulates that the application should be submitted along with the corrected copies of SSLC/SSC book. Government have given one year period to submit the applications. Mere submission of application within one year without any supporting documents is not a proper and valid application in the eye of law. 11. In the instant case it is an admitted fact petitioner did not submit the application before the Board within the time stipulated. Petitioner might have submitted application before the Government for condonation of delay in submission of application for getting the date of birth corrected in the SSLC book. According to counsel for the petitioner eventhough petitioner submitted an application in 1993, Commissioner passed the final orders in 1996, after a period of three years, and therefore there is delay at the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations. This contention of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is always possible for employees to get the date of birth corrected while in service or after retirement. As far as the correction of date of birth in the service records is concerned, it is imperative that application with corrected SSLC Book should be submitted within one year from the date of the Government Order. The necessity for following the said procedure is discernible from the order itself. Otherwise it is possible for the employees to apply for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book before the Commissioner for Government Examinations and wait till the fag end of their career. As I have already stated the date of birth in the service records of an employee has got great significance not only for him but also for others who are in service. Promotion chance of juniors depend upon retirement of seniors. If the date of birth is corrected at the fag end of one's career, promotion chances of others in the establishment would be affected. They might have joined service on the basis that the senior would retire on a given date and that would open up promotional avenues to them. Promotion chance of juniors depend upon retirement of seniors. If the date of birth is corrected at the fag end of one's career, promotion chances of others in the establishment would be affected. They might have joined service on the basis that the senior would retire on a given date and that would open up promotional avenues to them. The above mentioned principle would indicate the ' fact that the Government order which was accepted by the Board has to be followed strictly. Therefore only in the case of those applications which were filed along with attested copy of corrected date of birth within time, Board is obliged to consider. Government order which was adopted by the Board itself would indicate that belated applications would be rejected summarily. As I have already stated, the application submitted without any supporting documents, within one year from the date of the Government order, is not a valid application in the eye of law to be entertained by the Board. In the instant case admittedly petitioner submitted his application for correction of date of birth in the service records with the corrected SSLC book only in the year 1996. Therefore petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the O. P. Accordingly O. P. is dismissed.