THOMAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE was a notification issued by the State in 1942 directing public servants to correct the errors, if any, in their dates of birth noted in the records connected with their service which should be done on production of satisfactory evidence in proof of the correct date. It was also indicated by a subsequent notification issued by the State in 1950 that the date of birth shown in the Registers kept by schools or colleges will be taken to be prime facie correct. The petitioner applied to correct the date of his birth in the records relating to his service not on the basis of the date of birth shown in the Admission Register maintained in the school in which he studied because that, according to him was erroneous. He therefore sought correction of the date of birth in the Admission Register first and then in every other subsequent records including those connected with his service because in every such record the date of birth was shown as in the admission register. This application was presented when he got notice that he is due to retire on 17-6-1951 as by that time he would have completed 55 years of age calculated on the basis of the date of birth shown in the admission register and which is the date shown in the records connected with his service which was given by him on accepting appointment The petition was presented on 7-6-1951. No stay of the order for retirement pursuant to the notice was asked for and the petitioner was accordingly retired admittedly on 17-6-1951 and thereafter he is drawing his pension. The order on the petitioner's application to correct his date of birth, No. L. Dis 14261/50/ehl dated 23-5-1951 reads as follows: "sub:- Correction of date of birth. Ref:- Petition received from Sri. M. Thomas, Assistant, m. P. School, Manjoor, praying for the correction of his date of birth from 4-11-1071 to 4-11-1076. The Petitioner's prayer is declined. " The complaint of the petitioner is that the said order is not supported by any reasons, that the evidence adduced by him to sustain his application has not been referred to nor has he been given an opportunity to be heard.

(2.) IN the counter-affidavit presented on behalf of the state, these allegations have been repudiated.