Judgment :- AR. Lakshmanan, J. Heard Mr. Ashok M. Cherian for the appellant. Mr. Ramakumar for respondent No.1 and Mr. P.K. Ravikrishnan. Government Pleader for respondent No. 3. 2. The Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P. 15016/97 now reported in Viswanathan v. Secretary to Government (1998 (1) KLT 724). The appellant Co-operative Bank is the third respondent in the Original Petition which is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and rules made thereunder. The first respondent C. Viswanathan filed O.P. 15016/97 to call for the records leading up to Ext. P4 and quash the same and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein to continue him in service beyond 31.8.1997 until he retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation and for a mandamus directing the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Palaxxad to perform the statutory duties in terms of R.197 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and enter the correct date of birth of the first respondent herein/ petitioner in O.P. in the service records. The first respondent is working as a Secretary of the Cooperative Society. He was functioning as such from 1.10.1970. According to the entry in the service book of the first respondent the date of birth was wrongly entered as 5.10.1939 while the actual date of his birth is 3.2.1941 which was found out by him while he had an opportunity to examine the records maintained in the Panchayat office relating to births and deaths. Immediately he made an application for correcting the date of birth of his service records for which the Government had passed an order condoning the delay which order is produced and marked as Ext. PI. Thereafter he submitted an application before the Controller of Examinations who however rejected it. On appeal the Government permitted the correction of date of birth of the first respondent as 3.2.1941 by order. which is produced and marked as Ext. P2. The first respondent. with that order sought correction of date of birth in his service records in the appellant society. He has already produced the corrected dale of birth also before the Bank. However the managing committee has refused to make alterations in terms of the corrected S.S.L.C. book in the service records of the first respondent. According to the date now shown in the service records. He has already produced the corrected dale of birth also before the Bank. However the managing committee has refused to make alterations in terms of the corrected S.S.L.C. book in the service records of the first respondent. According to the date now shown in the service records. the first respondent is due to retire on 31.8.1997. while if the correction is accepted he can continue in service for another year and a half. Since the managing committee had refused to make the correction. he made a representation to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Ext. P3. Since there was no response the first respondent filed O P. 12900 of 1997 in this Court to pass orders in the representation Ext. P3. Accordingly the Joint Registrar has passed an order holding the view that he has no powers at all in the matter. The said order is marked as Ext. P4. The Joint Registrar has informed the first respondent that the resolution cannot be rescinded. The order of the Joint Registrar according to the first respondent clearly discloses patent errors of law and importing materials which are altogether irrelevant to the issue. He filed the Writ Petition to quash Ext. P4 and for other allied reliefs. Along with the Writ Petition. the first respondent filed Exts. P1 to P4 in support of his case. 3. The second respondent in the O.P. filed a counter affidavit through Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies. It is submitted that there is no specific rule in existence to correct the date of birth in the service register of the employee working in the co-operative sector. The Government vide G.O. (P) No. 45/91/P&ARD dated 30.12.1991 had issued guidelines regarding the correction of date of birth in the service book of government employees. The State Government had issued this order with due regard to the system followed in the case of Central Government employees. The Government had issued the above cited orders with a view to discourage the growing tendency on the part of Government employees to get the date of birth corrected when they are about to retire. In the Government order it has been specifically stated that the application for correction of date of birth in the case of government employee shall be made within live years of one's entry in service and in the case of those who have already crossed the limit. In the Government order it has been specifically stated that the application for correction of date of birth in the case of government employee shall be made within live years of one's entry in service and in the case of those who have already crossed the limit. one year time from the date of the order shall be allowed provided they apply beyond the two years proceeding retirement reckoned with reference to the date of birth as recorded in the service register. It is submitted that this Court as well as the State Government have discouraged the tendency on the part of the employees to have their date of birth corrected at the fag end of their service. As such it is submitted that for correcting the date of birth of such an employee the principles behind the relevant government order and also the observation of this Court and also of the Supreme Court have to be relied on and while issuing Ext. P4 letter the respondent has relied upon the principles behind the Government order and also the observations of this Court. The action of the first respondent is against the principles and observations as mentioned in the judgment. 4. The first respondent/ petitioner in O.P. filed a reply affidavit. Along with the reply affidavit the petitioner filed Exts. P4(a).P5.P6 and P7. Ext. P5 is the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations. Kerala under which sanction was accorded to correct the date of birth as 3.2.1941. Ext. P6 is the true copy of the Board resolution No. IV dated 20.3.1997 of the appellant bank. So far as the contention raised by the second respondent in the O.P. in his counter that for correction of date of birth. since there is no specific rule in existence enabling an employee of the cooperative society. the principles behind the relevant government order has to be relied on. The petitioner in the O.P. submitted that the rule made by the Government will only apply to Government employees and rules regarding the conditions of employment in the co-operative societies are controlled by the Co-operative Societies Acts and Rules. 5. Before Abdul Gafoor. J. the same contention was raised on behalf of the appellant and on behalf of the Government. The petitioner in the O.P. submitted that the rule made by the Government will only apply to Government employees and rules regarding the conditions of employment in the co-operative societies are controlled by the Co-operative Societies Acts and Rules. 5. Before Abdul Gafoor. J. the same contention was raised on behalf of the appellant and on behalf of the Government. On behalf of the first respondent it was contended that in so far as the co-operative societies employees are concerned the entry of date of birth in the service register shall be that entered in the school admission register. Matriculation book or S.S.L.C. book. In other words it cannot vary with the said records. Whenever there is correction in the said records. naturally that shall reflect in the service book also and that is the statutory provision as contained in R.197 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. The learned judge also rejected the argument of the counsel for the appellant and the Government and held that any executive order issued in respect of government servants even if it is found applicable to co-operative societies' employees. cannot alter the statute as contained in R.197 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. He also referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Kunhikrishnan v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 13) dealing with the date of birth correction of aided school teachers before amendment to R.28 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules. and held that government orders cannot over-ride the statutory provisions. Before the amendment of the said rule a Note was added below R.28 Chapter XIV-A of K.E.R. R.28 is in the following words : "The date of birth on page one of the service book shall be entered in words as well as in figures. Once the date of birth has been accepted and recorded in the service book it shall form conclusive evidence of the same in respect of all future transactions on the matter." Note to R.28 runs as follows: "Note:- The date of birth to be entered in the service book at the time of entry in service shall be that entered in the School Admission Register. Matriculation Book or S.S.L.C. Book. For making alteration to such entries relating to date of birth in the service book subsequently. Matriculation Book or S.S.L.C. Book. For making alteration to such entries relating to date of birth in the service book subsequently. the procedure laid down in the case of Government employees under G.O. (MS) 39/72/PD dated the 22nd January 1972 and G.O. (MS) 123/75/PD dated the 16th June. 1975 which were made applicable to aided school (teaching) and non-teaching as per G.O. (MS) 139/76/G.Edn. dated the 17th July. 1976 shall be followed and the conditions stipulated in these G.O. in regard to correction of date of birth shall be applicable to aided school staff (teaching and non-teaching) as well. Provided that the date of birth once entered and duly attested by the Educational Officer under R.29 shall be changed only under sanction obtained from Government." R.197 of the Co-operative Societies Rules reads as follows: "197. Maintenance of Service Register:- Every society shall maintain a service register in the form prescribed by the Registrar for every employee to indicate his date of birth. qualifications. date of appointment. etc. The Chief Executive Officer shall authenticate the entries in the register and such register of the Chief Executive Officer shall be authenticated by the President/ Chairman and kept in his custody. Note:- The date of birth of the employee shall be that entered in the school admission register. Matriculation book or S.S.L.C. book". Note to R.28 of Chapter XIV-A of K.E.R. and the Note to R.197 of the Cooperative Societies Rules are exactly the same. A Full Bench of this Court reported in Kunhikrishnan v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 13) held that G.O. (MS) No. 39/72/PD dated 22.1.1972 and G.O. (MS) No. 123 /75/PD dated 16.6.1975 cannot override the statutory rules in the Kerala Education Rules 1959 and what the Note to R.28 in Chapter XIV-A requires is that the dale of birth entered in the admission register or one or the other of the books mentioned there in shall be entered in the service book. In view of the Note to R.28 in Chapter XIV-A in the Rules on correction of the date of birth of a private aided school teacher in the school records. correction of his date of birth in the service book is automatic. The Full Bench. taking into account the provisions of R.28 Chapter XIV-A as existed then gave the verdict as above. The above ruling squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. correction of his date of birth in the service book is automatic. The Full Bench. taking into account the provisions of R.28 Chapter XIV-A as existed then gave the verdict as above. The above ruling squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. We have already extracted R.197 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and the Note to the said rule which is in par materia to the note existed at that time under R.28 Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules. As already held by the Supreme Court in Tarn Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1975 SC 1487) that. the Notes are promulgated with the rules in exercise of legislative power. The Notes are made contemporaneously with the rules. The function of the notes is to provide procedure and to control direction. The real purpose of the Notes is that when rules are silent the Notes will fill up the gaps. 6. Therefore. the learned single judge held that the Note under R.197 of the Cooperative Societies Rules will have to be adhered to while considering the entry of the date of birth in the service register of a co-operative employee. Relying on the Note under R.28 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. which is in pari materia the Note under R.197 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. The Full Bench also held as noted above that the correction of date of birth of a private aided school teacher in the school records mentioned above. and the correction of date of birth in the service book is automatic. The learned judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent and directed the Secretary to Government. Department of Co-operation Government of Kerala to effect the correction immediately with necessary consequences to follow. 7. Aggrieved by the above judgment the Co-operative Bank filed the above Writ Appeal. Learned counsel for the Bank Mr. Ashok M. Cherian submitted that R.197 of the Rules envisages that entry of date of birth in service register at the time when an employee enters the service of the society shall be as that entered in the school admission register/ matriculation book of S.S.L.C. book and the rules does not provide for correcting the entry of date of birth in the service register once entry is made on the basis of entry in the school records produced by the employee at the time when he enters the service. He would further submit that Ext. P5 correcting the entry of date of birth of the first respondent in his S.S.L.C. Book itself is one passed without powers and against statutory rules and hence the request for correction of entry of date of birth in his service register based on Ext. P5 order is not maintainable and that the learned judge ought not have entertained the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent at the fag end of service and when he was due to retire from service as laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar (AIR 1995 SC 1499). According to learned counsel for the appellant when there is no special rules which permit a person appointed in the service of a co-operative society to seek correction of his date of birth. he has to invoke the procedure contemplated for the government servants to correct the service records. Learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision reported in Gheevarghese v. State of Kerala (1987 (1) KLT 558). Sreedharan. J. while considering the petition for correction of date of birth in E.S.L.C. book allowed by Government gave the following ruling: "The statutory authority to correct the date of birth in School records is the Commissioner for Government Examinations. From his decision an appeal lies to the Government. The decision of the Government is final on the matter. If the Commissioner carries out live correction in the date of birth. it may not bind the Government because the Government has got the jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Commissioner. So. the order of the Commissioner correcting the date of birth in the school records of a Government employee will not ipso facto bind the Government. The situation is entirely different when the Government passes an order correcting the date of birth in the school records. The Government when passes such an order correcting the date of birth is bound by that order. That order can be varied by the Government only in accordance with a process known to law. Another Department of Government cannot sit in judgment over the decision allowing the correction of date of birth in the school records. When the Government in the General Education Department orders correction of the date of birth of a Government employee in his school records. Another Department of Government cannot sit in judgment over the decision allowing the correction of date of birth in the school records. When the Government in the General Education Department orders correction of the date of birth of a Government employee in his school records. the Administrative Department under which the employee works is bound by the corrected date of birth and the department must carry out the correction in service records as well." Annamma v. State of Kerala (1987 (1) KLT 882) is by a Division Bench of this Court. The principal contention by the appellant's counsel before the Bench was the appellant's date of birth having corrected in the school records/SSLC book after condoning delay in making such application. the Government was bound to correct the entry in the service register to bring the date of birth of the appellant in tune with the correction made in the school records/s.s.l.c. In support of his contention the counsel relied on the decision of this Court in 1982 KLT 13. Considering the Government Order the Full Bench ruled that on correction of the date of birth of a private aided school teacher in the school records. correction of his date of birth in the service book is automatic. The said decision was rendered having regard to the provisions of R.28 of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R. as it then stood. But in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court the said rule was amended by Notification No. G.O.(P) 54/80/G.Edn. dated 12.5.1980 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 24.6.1980 to make it clear that there cannot be any automatic correction in the service register on the date of birth being corrected in the school records/SSLC. This is clear from the addition of the proviso to R.28 in the following terms: "Provided the date of birth once entered and duly attested by the Educational Officer under R.29 shall be changed only under sanction obtained from Government". The sanction of the Government is necessary for the purpose of correcting the entry in the service register. In other words the automatic correction contemplated by the earlier rule is no more available after R.28 stood amended in the year 1980. The proceedings are governed by the amended rules as the superannuation. The sanction of the Government is necessary for the purpose of correcting the entry in the service register. In other words the automatic correction contemplated by the earlier rule is no more available after R.28 stood amended in the year 1980. The proceedings are governed by the amended rules as the superannuation. the date when the application was made for correction of the date of birth in the school records/ S.S.L.C. and the application for correcting the date of birth in the service register were all filed long after the amendment came into force. Hence it is not possible to accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant having secured correction of her date of birth in the school records/s.s.l.c.. she was entitled to automatic correction of her date of birth in the service Register. Therefore. the above judgment will have no application to the facts of the present case. In Sahadevan v. State of Kerala (1987 (2) KLT 143) the Division Bench held that the correction of date of birth in the S.S.L.C. register does not automatically entitle the applicant to get his date of birth corrected in the service register. 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. Ramakrishnan Nair v. Guruvayoor Devaswom (1994 (2) KLT 845) was cited by the learned counsel for the appellant for the proposition that in ordinate and unexplained delay or laches on the part of the employees to seek correction of the date of birth in the service records should necessarily disentitle them from getting the date corrected. The petitioner in this case was an employee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. He moved the Commissioner for Government Examinations for correcting the date of birth in the school records which was rejected by the Commissioner for Government Examinations. The petitioner /appellant in that case took up the matter in appeal before the Government. Government took the view that the request of the petitioner for correction deserves consideration and hence it is allowed and set aside the orders of the Commissioner for Government Examination and the Commissioner for Government Examination was directed to make necessary correction in his S.S.L.C. book accordingly. Government took the view that the request of the petitioner for correction deserves consideration and hence it is allowed and set aside the orders of the Commissioner for Government Examination and the Commissioner for Government Examination was directed to make necessary correction in his S.S.L.C. book accordingly. Pursuant to the above order the Commissioner corrected the date of birth in the school records i.e.. four days prior to his due date of retirement as per the date of birth entered in the service records. The petitioner moved the Devaswom for correcting the date of birth in the service records which was rejected by the Commissioner first and then by the committee of the Devaswom. The Division Bench while expressing the displeasure in the manner in which the managing committee acted in passing annexure- i resolution had observed that the petitioner-appellant must be deemed to have retired from service on 31.8.1987 itself and also held that the decision taken by the Board in correcting the date of birth must be treated as nonest. As already noticed this judgment also will have no application to the facts of our case. Since in the present case we are concerned with R.197 of the Co-operative Societies Rules which is in pari materia with the note to R.28 as it then existed. Learned counsel for the appellant cited Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar (AIR 1995 SC 1499) in order to project his case that the applications made at the fag end of the service carriers should not be entertained which will mar the chance of promotion of the juniors. The above decision will have no application to the facts of this case. In the above case. a writ of mandamus to correct the date of birth of petitioner 1 therein/respondent before the Supreme Court in his service and leave record and allow him to continue in its service beyond his superannuation age commutable according to his date of birth entered in that service and leave record at the time of his appointment was asked for. In the above case the writ petition was filed by the employee to compel the employer to correct the date of birth in his service and leave record and to allow him to continue in service beyond his superannuation age. In the above case the writ petition was filed by the employee to compel the employer to correct the date of birth in his service and leave record and to allow him to continue in service beyond his superannuation age. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal tiled by the management and held that such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the High Court in favour of such employee who approaches the court at the fag end of his carrier. As a matter of course the Supreme court held that the High Court should not ordinarily in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction entertain a writ application/ petition filed by an employee of the Government or its instrumentality towards the fag end of his service seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his service and leave record or service register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal and rejected the writ application of the respondent No.1 before it. 8. In the instant case the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to quash Ext. P4 and to enter the correct date of birth in the service records and also directing the respondents in the O.P. to continue the petitioner in service beyond 31.8.1987 until he retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore. the above Supreme Court judgment will have no application to the facts of the present case. R.3 Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules deals with alteration of date of birth. The Rule says that the name of the pupil. his religion and his date of birth once entered in the admission register shall not be altered except with the sanction of the authority specified by the Government in his behalf by notification in the Gazette and that the applications for such alterations and corrections should be submitted by the parent or guardian. if the pupil is still on the rolls of his school and by the pupil himself if he is not on the rolls of any school and all such applications shall be forwarded through the Headmaster with satisfactory evidence. if the pupil is still on the rolls of his school and by the pupil himself if he is not on the rolls of any school and all such applications shall be forwarded through the Headmaster with satisfactory evidence. Under R.3(1)A a- time limit of fifteen years from the date of leaving the school of the date of appearing for the SSLC Examination for the last time whichever is earlier is fixed for entertaining request for correction of date of birth in school records by the Commissioner of Government Examinations. Note (1) of the above rule states that the Government shall consider request for condonation of delay in making application for correction of date of birth in school records. in deserving cases on merits provided that the applicant is within 50 years of age as per the original entry in the school records. Note (2) says that if the authority referred to in sub-r.(1) is satisfied after necessary enquiries that the change applied for could be granted. he will issue an order to make the alteration. The alteration shall then be made in the admission register and the other connected records of the schools previously attended by the pupil as well as in the school in which he was studying at that time. Thus. it is seen that under R.3 of Chapter VI universal right is given to all the S.S.L.C. holders to correct or alter the date of birth whether they take up employment or not. Note (2) to R.3 was introduced in 1991. Under R.197 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and the Note no specific rule is quoted. All that the employer has to do is that the entry is made as entered in the school admission register/matriculation Book or S.S.L.C. Book. There is no lacuna in the above rule. 1982 KLT 13 (F.B) is the first case before amendment. We have already noticed that the Note to R.28 is also the same as the Note to R.197. Therefore. the above Full Bench judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. The Board of Management as per Resolution No. VI has resolved on 11.6.1997 that the first respondent/ petitioner is not entitled for correction of date of birth since he was to attain the age of 5 8 and was due to retire from service on 31.8.1997. The said resolution. it is submitted. The Board of Management as per Resolution No. VI has resolved on 11.6.1997 that the first respondent/ petitioner is not entitled for correction of date of birth since he was to attain the age of 5 8 and was due to retire from service on 31.8.1997. The said resolution. it is submitted. is contrary to R.197 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. R.176 deals with the Registrar's power to rescind solution. R.176 reads thus: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of a registered society. it shall be competent for the Registrar to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or the committee of any society. if it appears to him that such resolution is ultra vires of the objects of the society. or is against the provisions of the Act. Rules. Bye-laws or of any direction or instructions issued by the Department or calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society or is contrary to the better interest of the society". The scope of the above rule is: "The Registrar is competent to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or the committee of any society if it appears to him that such resolution is ultra vires of the objects of the society or is against the provisions of the Act. Rules. bye-laws or any directions or instructions issued by the Department or calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society and contrary to better interest of the society. Only on satisfying any of the conditions stipulated in Rule. the Registrar is competent to rescind any resolution passed by the committee of the society." In this case Ext. P4 order was passed on the reasoning that the first respondent has not applied to correct his date of birth within five years prior to the retirement. The reasoning is not correct. We have already noticed that the Government order does not apply to the employees of the Co-operative Societies and they are governed by the provisions under R.197 for correction of date of birth. Therefore the Government orders referred to above by the learned counsel for the appellant will not apply to a cooperative society. There is a fundamental fallacy in the order impugned in the Writ Petition. According to R.197 of the Co-operative Societies Rules every co-operative " society shall maintain a service register in the form prescribed. Therefore the Government orders referred to above by the learned counsel for the appellant will not apply to a cooperative society. There is a fundamental fallacy in the order impugned in the Writ Petition. According to R.197 of the Co-operative Societies Rules every co-operative " society shall maintain a service register in the form prescribed. As far as the first respondent is concerned the date entered in his S.S.L.C. book is 3.2.1941 according to the alternations in terms of various government orders. There is no rule preventing the society now for carrying that date into the service book as per the S.S.L.C. Book. The date of birth of first respondent has already been corrected in his S.S.L.C. book in accordance with law and that has become final. That date cannot be questioned by anybody. There is no rule applicable to the society to make correction within any period. There is no reason at all for the society to refuse to do the corrections sought by the first respondent. The Joint Registrar. instead of carrying out the directions issued by this court to consider and pass orders. has instead considered the validity of correction of the date of birth which is clearly outside his jurisdiction. The only question left to be decided by the Joint Registrar was that the correction already carried out should be entered in the service records. The rule referred to above is absolutely clear as it has to be so. Instead the Joint Registrar has sat in judgment over the correction itself which is totally beyond his jurisdiction. 9. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the employees of the co-operative society are to be equated to government employees and therefore the rules relating to service records and date of birth are specific and the government orders issued are applicable to the employees of the cooperative society. The Joint Registrar has referred to the provisions of Kerala Service Rules and the principles regarding correction of date of birth of government employees which. in out opinion are absolutely irrelevant. There is no government order prohibiting the entry of a correct date of birth in relation to a co-operative society employee. The statutory rules are more relevant over all executive orders relied on by the Joint Register . In our opinion. in out opinion are absolutely irrelevant. There is no government order prohibiting the entry of a correct date of birth in relation to a co-operative society employee. The statutory rules are more relevant over all executive orders relied on by the Joint Register . In our opinion. the Joint Registrar has failed to perform his statutory duties and obligations specifically ordered to be discharged by this Court. making his order totally vitiated and void. In the result of the Writ Appeal fails. The order of the learned single judge is ratified. The appellant shall enter the corrected date of birth of the first respondent in his service records. The first respondent is allowed to continue in service beyond 31.8.1997 until he retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation as per the corrected date of birth. In the result the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs. C.M.P. No. 2774/98 also stands dismissed.