P.M. ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in the above writ petition is with respect to the appointment of one person as Attender cum Driver to the Korampadam Service Co -operative Bank Ltd. No. 178. W.P.(C) 30646/2012 has been filed by the 2nd rank holder, in the selection pursuant to Ext. P1 notification issued on 16.06.2008. The 5th respondent admittedly was the 1st rank holder. The controversy revolves around the age of the 5th respondent. As per Ext. P1 notification, the stipulation with respect to age was that a candidate should have crossed 18 years and should not have crossed 37 as on 01.04.2008. It is also the admitted position that the 5th respondent, being a Latin Christian, an OBC, was entitled to three years age relaxation. Hence the 5th respondents eligibility to be selected is, only if he was 40 years at the time of selection. Selection was conducted on the basis of Ext. P7 certificate produced by the 5th respondent, wherein the date of birth was shown as 19.01.1969.

(2.) THE petitioner who was the 2nd rank holder, avers that he was the immediate neighbour of the 5th respondent and was aware of his age, but, did not have any authentic documents to prove that the 5th respondent was beyond the age limit prescribed in Ext. P1. The petitioner hence, applied under the Right to Information Act to the Public Information Officer, Regional Transport Office, Ernakulam as to the details of the 5th respondent's driving license. Ext. P6 was the reply in which the 5th respondent was said to have been issued a driving license in the year 1985 with No. 7/416/1985. The declared date of birth of the 5th respondent, before the licensing authority was 19.01.1964. Going by such declaration, the 5th respondent would have been 44 years of age, as on the date notified in Ext. P1 notification.

(3.) PURSUANT to such direction Ext. P22 was, passed by the Joint Registrar, which is assailed in the writ petition. The Joint Registrar did not consider the issue of the declaration made by the 5th respondent before the licensing authority under the Motor Vehicle's Act, 1939. The Joint Registrar merely found that the school register is the only authentic document, which can be taken into consideration, for deciding the age of the candidate and in that view, found that there is nothing to show that a fraudulent document has been produced. It is to be specifically noticed that despite the school certificate produced being the extract of the attendance register; the Joint Registrar ought to have noticed that, before the school authority as also the licensing authority, the authorities go on the basis of the declaration made by the applicant. And in fact, it is the licensing authority who would insist on supporting evidence of the declaration of date of birth.