STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY AND JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT Vs. P.E. KRISHNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are the respondents in the writ petition. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The point that arises for decision in this case is whether the respondent is entitled to get correction of her date of birth in her service book, on the ground that another person similarly placed has been granted the benefit. The brief facts of the case are the following : The respondent was a P.D. Teacher who joined service on 10.3.1971. She passed the SSLC examination held in March, 1966. As per Rule 3 of Chapter VI K.E.R., the application for correction of date of birth in the school records/SSLC book should be submitted within 15 years of the student leaving the school or appearing for the SSLC examination for the last time, whichever is earlier. The Government have the power to condone the delay in making the application for correction of date of birth in school records, provided the applicant is within 50 years of age, as per the original entry in the school records. As per the entry made in the SSLC book, the respondent's date of birth is 4.7.1947. According to her, her correct date of birth is 4.7.1949. But, to get it corrected, she did not submit any application within 15 years, i.e., before 1981. Later, she moved the Government for condonation of delay in submitting the application for correction of date of birth in the school records, and the same was allowed by the Government by order dated 16.12.1992. On the strength of the said order, she submitted an application on 20.12.1992 for correction of her date of birth in the school records. The same was allowed by the second appellant, Joint Commissioner for Government Examinations, by Ext.P1 proceedings dated 14.12.1995. Thereafter, she submitted an application before the Government on 20.1.1996 for correction of her date of birth entered in her service book, as 4.7.1949, instead of 4.7.1947.

(2.) THE correction of date of birth in the school records is governed by Ext.P4 (G.O.(P) No. 45/91/P&ARD dated 30.12.1991). The Government rejected the respondent's application, by Ext.P2 order dated 30.3.1996, relying on the time limit mentioned in Ext.P4. The petitioner filed a representation on 18.11.1998 before the Government, seeking reconsideration of her case. That was also rejected by Ext.P3. Challenging Exts.P2 and P3, and seeking consequential reliefs, the writ petition was filed. In the writ petition, she produced Ext.P5 order, as per which correction of date of birth in the service book of a person who submitted the application belatedly, was granted. The respondents in the writ petition filed a counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the writ petition. But, the learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, relying on Ext.P5 Government Order by which the same relief was granted to another person, allowed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, the respondents in the writ petition have preferred this writ appeal.

(3.) AS per the orders governing correction of date of birth in service book, earlier, the applications need be submitted before two years of retirement as per the original date of birth. Taking note of the fact that several applications were being submitted by the Government servants at the fag end of their career for correction of date of birth, the Government finally issued Ext.P4 order. As per that order, the application for correction of date of birth should be submitted within five years of the date of entry into service. But, in the case of those who were already in the service as on 30.12.1991, they were given a chance to submit the applications, if any, within one year from that date. Ext.P4 Government Order also stipulated that the application should be accompanied by corrected school records etc. That is, such stipulations in the earlier Government Orders, will continue to be in force, even after the issuance of Ext.P4. Going by Ext.P4, the claim of the respondent was plainly untenable. But she tried to prop up her claim, relying on Ext.P5 Government Order, as per which, unmerited benefit was granted to a U.P. School Assistant in an aided U.P. School. Ext.P4 is a general order which specifically says that the applications for correction of date of birth of those who are in service as on 30.12.1991 shall not be entertained, if submitted after 30.12.1992. But, Ext.P5 granted the benefit to a Primary Teacher, contrary to the terms of the above Government Order. Therefore, Ext.P5 is an illegal order. The respondent cannot claim that the same illegality should be repeated in her case also. The Apex Court has held in several decisions that a person cannot claim reliefs based on an illegal order passed in favour of somebody else. For satisfying the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Government cannot be asked to repeat an illegality. A stray illegality cannot be placed on a higher pedestal than the general competent order, Ext.P4. Therefore, no relief could be granted to the respondent as her application for correction of date of birth was liable to be rejected in view of Ext.P4 order. So, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with Exts.P2 or P3, or granted her any reliefs.