JUDGMENT : The petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P16 application preferred for re-issue of her passport with the date of birth corrected based on the Ext.P1 Birth Certificate. The petitioner’s request was not considered, as the respondents insisted on correcting the date of birth in the service records before considering the application. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot now seek a correction of the service records as the period stipulated for the same has long expired, and therefore, correcting the service record is impossible. The learned Senior Counsel also points out that, as per Ext.P15 Rules [The Passports (Amendment) Rules, 2025], all that is required for correction is an affidavit stating the reason for change in the date of birth, and therefore, the guidelines/manual that run counter to the statutory provisions cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 894/2025, dated 21.02.2025, in an identical situation wherein this Court directed the 2 nd respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner therein for correction of date of birth in the passport without insisting on the service records being corrected before the application for change of date of birth can be considered. 4. A correction of service records in the case of the petitioner is an impossibility at this distance of time as seen from Ext.P11 Government Order dated 30 th December 1991 which fixed five years from entering the service for correction of date of birth and for those who had not made an application, one year from the date of issuance of Ext.P1, namely 30 th December 1991. 5. Under such circumstances, the service book of the petitioner cannot be corrected. 5. Under such circumstances, the service book of the petitioner cannot be corrected. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another [ (2011) 7 SCC 639 ] and by this Court in Sulfikar vs. The Kerala State Election Commission (MANU/KE/2350/2024) , the doctrine of Impossibility is based on the doctrines “lex non cogit ad impossibilia” (the law does not comple a man to do what he cannot possibly perform), “impossibilium nulla obligatio est” (the law does not expect a party to do the impossible) and “impotentia excusat legem” in the qualified sense that there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory part of the law or to forbear the prohibitory. These maxims are akin to the maxim of Roman Law Nemo Tenetur ad Impossibilia (no one is bound to do an impossibility), which is derived from common sense and natural equity and has been adopted and applied in law from time immemorial. Therefore, when it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control, like an act of God, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse. The above maxims are founded upon justice and good sense and serve as a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. The law itself and its administration are understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of law must adopt the general exception in consideration of a particular case. Even in the case of the performance of formalities prescribed by a statute, the impossibility due to circumstances over which the persons concerned have no control has to be taken as a valid excuse. Where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default in him, and has no remedy over it, there the law will, in general, excuse him. It has to be treated at par with those circumstances over which the person had no control, like the act of God. As such, the insistence on a condition that is incapable of performance cannot be accepted. 6. It has to be treated at par with those circumstances over which the person had no control, like the act of God. As such, the insistence on a condition that is incapable of performance cannot be accepted. 6. It is also to be seen that the compendium of Instructions/Guidelines relating to the issue of Passports in India/Abroad cannot go against the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 or the Rules thereon or any other instrument having the force of law. In the absence of any statutory provision indicating that the correction of date of birth in the passport will have to be preceded by the correction of date of birth in the service records in case of Government Servants, the stand of the respondents has to be rejected. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner has to succeed, and there will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider Ext.P16 application without insisting on the correction of the service records by the petitioner and in terms of the affidavit preferred as per Ext.P15 Rules. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above.