Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner's application for correction of his date of birth in service records was rejected earlier as per Ext. P4 produced along with C.M.P. No. 25860/98. The reason stated therein was as follows: "The application made for correction of date of birth in school records cannot be considered as an application for correction of date of birth in service records since the correction of date of birth in school records does not automatically entitle the applicant to get the date of birth corrected in the service book. The date of birth of the incumbent in the SSLC book is seen corrected on 29.6.1996. The application ofthe incumbent for correction of date of birth in Service records is therefore, time barred". Ext. P4 was challenged in O.P. No. 4480/97 which led to Ext. P1 judgment. In paragraph 4 of the judgment it was held as follows: "I do not think that the destruction ofthe records in the normal course is a defence for not considering the application of the petitioner for correction of date of birth filed as early as in 1985 and a reminder had been sent in 1988. Therefore, it is obvious that petitioner has filed an application much earlier than the date of Ex t P9 Government Order for correction of date of birth. According to the orders prevailing in 1985 there was no necessity for the petitioner to apply for correction of date of birth accompanied by corrected SSLC Book. Therefore, the conditions contained in Ext. P9 regarding the production of corrected SSLC Book is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, I quash Exts. P8 and P11. The 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext. P2 application considering the case of the petitioner on the basis of Ext. P1 certificate of Panchayat and also Ext. P4 order of the Commissioner for Government Examinations. In order to enable the first respondent to pass orders the petitioner is directed to produce a copy of Ext. P2 application before the first respondent along with a copy of this judgment. The first respondent is directed to consider the above application on merits within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment". Based on that direction, a fresh order is issued as per Ext. P3 again declining the application stating that, " Ext. P2 application before the first respondent along with a copy of this judgment. The first respondent is directed to consider the above application on merits within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment". Based on that direction, a fresh order is issued as per Ext. P3 again declining the application stating that, " Ext. P2 application is not a valid one for correction of date of birth in the service book as it does not contain the corrected school records". Ext. P2 mentioned in Ext. P3 is an application made by the petitioner for correction of date of birth as early as on 2.8.85, in service records. Another reason stated in Ext. P3 is that, "he applied for correction of date of birth in the service records in 1996 on the basis of the corrected school records and that application is a belated one". Thus, his application was not considered on merit by the Government. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing Ext. P3. 2. In Ext. P1, it was found that the petitioner had already applied for correction of date of birth in service records as early as on 2.8.85. At that time, the procedure for correction of date of birth enabled any incumbent in government service to apply for such correction in service records before two years of the date of retirement as per the existing entry. Therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner on 2.8.85 was perfectly within the time frame at that point of time. Therefore, the Government cannot, on the basis of the orders then stood governing the issue and on the basis of Ext. P1 judgment, now say that the application was belated. Therefore, the second finding in Ext. P3 to reject the application that it is time barred, is not correct. 3. True, the petitioner might not have obtained the correction of date of birth in school records at that time. Even independently of the same, petitioner was free to submit application for correction of date of birth in service records without corresponding correction in the school records. It was insisted that the corrected school records shall also accompany the application for correction of date of birth in service records only as per government order dated 30.12.91. When the application dated 2.8.85 was submitted by the petitioner, there was no such insistence. It was insisted that the corrected school records shall also accompany the application for correction of date of birth in service records only as per government order dated 30.12.91. When the application dated 2.8.85 was submitted by the petitioner, there was no such insistence. In the decision reported in Prabhakaran Nair v. State of Kerala (1990 (1) KLT 858) it was held that, ".... I do not find anything in the relevant Government Orders, which justifies the stand now taken by the Government in Ext. P11, that the application for correction of the date of birth submitted more than two years prior to the date of retirement would not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the SSLC Book as corrected." This judgment has been upheld by a Division Bench in W.A. 198/90 and approved in State of Kerala v. Gopalan Chettiar (1993 (2) KLT 169). It was also held in the decision as follows: "If that be so and the application dated 30.1.1991 could not be treated as an in valid application as the applicant has a vested right to have the case decided after resubmitting the application along with corrected SSLC Book, the subsequent administrative Order (G.O.(P) No. 26/91/P&ARD dated 27. 8.1991) could not have any effect on the vested rights of the writ petitioner. The said Government Order would, obviously not apply to cases where applications earlier submitted had been returned before 27.8.1991 and were resubmitted though after 27.8.1991". 4. The same will be the position in respect of the application which was not returned and was pending with the Government. 5. In the light of these pronouncements, it cannot be stated that the application which led to Ext. P3 order was not a valid one as it did not contain the corrected school records. Therefore, the reason stated in Ext. P3 is unfounded. Accordingly, Ext. P3 is quashed and the application disposed of by Ext. P3 shall be considered afresh as a valid application filed within the time limit. Order shall be passed after hearing the petitioner at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Original Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.