PRATHAPACHAHDRA VARMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P-9 order passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for correction of his date of birth as entered in the school register. THE request has been rejected by the 3rd respondent on the ground that it is inadmissible as no clerical error has occurred.

(2.) THE petitioner is a young man who is stated to be aged 14 and who has passed S. S. L. C. Examination in May, 1966. According to him his correct date of birth is 4-6-1952, but it had been mistakenly entered in the school register as 28-1-1953. When the petitioner applied for admission to the pre-degree course in 1966-67 he was denied admission on the ground that he bad not attained the minimum age for admission to that course, namely 14 years as on the 1st October, 1966. It was when he was faced with this objection that he came to realise the mistake that had crept into the entry regarding his date of birth in the school register. He, therefore, applied to the Director of Public instruction, Trivandrum (3rd respondent) as per Ext. P-8 that the mistake may be rectified by entering his date of birth as 4-6-1952, which according to him is the correct date, in the place of mistaken entry, namely 28-1-1953. Along with his application he furnished (1) the birth certificate obtained from the corpoation of Trivandrum containing the birth register extract relating to him, (2) a certificate from the Government Women & Children's Hospital, Thycaud, stating that as per the obstetric register maintained in the Hospital the petitioner's mother was admitted to the hospital on 25-5-1952, delivered on 4-6-1952 and was discharged cured on 11-6-1952, and (3) a certificate from the medical Officer who attended on the petitioner's mother certifying that the delivery took place on the 4th June, 1952, at the Women and Children's hospital, Thycaud and that the child born to her was a boy who was subsequently given the name G. P. Varma.

(3.) IT is not contended before me that the above two orders have been issued by Government in the exercise of any statutory power. They are certainly not rules made under the Education Act, but are mere executive orders. IT is difficult to see how the Government are competent to impose by executive orders any fetters on the discretion to be exercised by the prescribed authority under R. 3 of Chapter VI in the discharge of his statutory functions under that Rule. No restrictions or trammels can be placed on the power conferred by that Rule on the prescribed authority by a mere executive order. ' A reference to R. 3 of Chapter VI shows that the authority is empowered to make corrections or alterations in the admission register and the other connected records of the schools in case it is satisfied after necessary enquiry that the change applied for should be granted. There is no warrant for fixation of the time-limit or for restricting the correction to mere clerical errors The two Government Orders referred to above in so far as they purport to put limitations on the powers of the specified authority under R. 3 of Chapter vi are therefore invalid and cannot be given effect to as against the petitioner in this case.