K KOCHUPADMANABHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Sub-Registrar in the Department of Registration of the State Government. His date of birth as entered in his service book is 19-3-1090 M. E. , according to which he would retire on 4-11-1969 on his completion of 55 years of age. Sometime before he was due to retire, the petitioner noticed that his correct date of birth was 19-3-1092 M. E. , and that he was due to retire only on 4-111971. He wanted to apply to the Government for correcting his date of birth in the service book, for which he thought that it was necessary to attach a certified extract of the relevant entry in the admission register of the school in which he was first admitted. Accordingly, he made an application on 28-12-1968 to the second respondent, the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Trivandrum for getting an extract of the above admission register. The second respondent issued a memo Ext. P-2 dated 19-1-1969 to the fourth respondent, the Headmaster, L. P. School, Kaikkara, wherein the petitioner was first admitted for education, requesting the fourth respondent to issue an extract of the said register relating to the admission of the petitioner. The petitioner had also moved the Assistant Educational Officer, Warkala for the same purpose, who had also addressed the the fourth respondent to issue to the petitioner the relevant extract from the school admission register. Ext. P-3 dated 5-3-1969 is a letter from the fourth respondent to the Assistant Educational Officer in this matter. It states that the relevant admission register had become very old, that there was no entry in letters of the petitioner's date of birth in the register, that the entry in figures were mutilated, and that it was not possible under the circumstances to issue an extract of the register relating to the admission of the petitioner. The matter seems to have been taken up by the petitioner again with the second respondent. Ext. P-4 dated 1-11-1969 is a communication addressed by the second respondent to the Assistant Educational Officer requiring him to make available to the second respondent the relevant admission register for verification. It was then getting too late for the petitioner to wait for the reply of the second respondent, as he would retire within 3 days. So he filed this original petition on 3-11-1969 for a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order to command the second respondent to perform the statutory function of making the necessary alterations as contemplated in Rule 3 of Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 and also to command the third respondent, the Inspector-General of Registration, for directing continuance of the petitioner in service till he attained the age of 55. He also filed an application to stay his retirement till the disposal of the O. P. That was not successful; and he retired on 4-11-1969.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed an application before the first respondent, the State of Kerala, on 3-9-1969 to call for the relevant records and correct his date of birth in his service book as claimed by him. That application was dismissed by the first respondent by its order Ext. P-5 dated 29-10-1969, stating that the above application could not be entertained in the light of G. O. Ms. 345/public (Services-B) Department dated 27-6-1962. The petitioner states that he got Ext. P5 on 7-11-1969. Then he moved a petition for amendment of the original petition by incorporating a prayer to quash Ext. P-5 on the ground that the aforesaid G. O. dated 27-6-1962 was unconstitutional and invalid.

(3.) RULE 3 in Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules relates to the alteration of date of birth of a pupil in the admission register. It appears that in the case of a person like the petitioner, the authority competent to sanction the alteration of the date of birth in the admission register is the second respondent. Exts. P-2 and P-4 show that he has been taking the necessary steps in the matter of the petitioner's application for correction of the date of birth. It cannot, therefore, be said that the second respondent failed or neglected to perform any public duty. Ext. P-4 is dated 1-11-1969 and this writ petition was filed on 3-11-1969. In these circumstances the petitioner's prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus or other direction to the second respondent to perform any statutory function under Rule 3 in Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules cannot be sustained. The petitioner will however be at liberty to pursue the matter with the second respondent who I am sure will deal with and dispose of the same according to law.