K R SUKUMARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts. P4 and P10 declining his request for correction of his date of birth in Service Book as well as in School records.

(2.) THE date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the S. S. L. C. Book is 13. 11. 11 l1 (ME ). This was carried over to his service book when it was opened on his entry in service.

(3.) WHILE continuing in service, the petitioner could know that there was a mistake in the date of birth in his school records as well as in Service records. He submits that the actual date of birth is 14. 11. 1112 (ME ). Seeking correction the petitioner made an application on June 25, 1986 to Government. In that the petitioner applied for the correction of the date of birth in service records. The petitioner produced Ext. P3 certificate in support of this claim. That is the birth certificate issued to the petitioner. His request was rejected in Ext. P4. The petitioner was informed in Ext. P4 that only after correcting the S. S. L. C. Book, application for corresponding correction in Service Book can be entertained. Later the petitioner on May 9, 1988 again approached the Government seeking correction of date of birth without corresponding correction in School records. The petitioner pointed out orders granted in favour of other persons without such correction in School records. This was rejected in 1989. In the meantime the petitioner applied to the commissioner for Government Examination under Rule 3 Chapter VIKER for correction of date of birth in the S. S. L. C. book; that was on June 27, 1989. But it was not in the statutory form. The petitioner was asked to submit an application in the statutory form. The petitioner submitted it as per Ext. P5 on June 15, 1990. That was rejected on September 10, 1990 stating that it could not be entertained due to delay. As per Rule3 (1) (A) Chapter VI KER, the period of limitation was fixed as 15 years at that time. It was in the above circumstances the petitioner's request was rejected on the ground of delay. Thereupon the petitioner submitted an application for condonation of delay before Government. It was rejected by a cryptic order Ext. P8. Exhibit P8 was challenged before this Court. That was quashed in Ext. P9 judgment and directed reconsideration. Government reconsidered it and passed Ext. P10 order, again rejecting it, on the ground of delay. Exhibit P 10 is dated May 25, 1991. By that time a note was introduced under Rule 3 (1) (A) Chapter VI KER providing for condonation of delay. But that will be allowed, as per the said note, only in respect of those who have not crossed the age of 50 years. Thus when Ext. P10 was issued though there was provision for condonation of delay the petitioner was not entitled for condonation, because he had crossed the age of 50 years. So I see no reason to interfere with Ext. PIO order whereby the petitioner's request for condonation of delay is rejected. Before introduction of this note there was no provision for condonation of delay.