IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4205 of 2010(A)
1. NANNANAN ATAVALATH, VELLOTH GOVINDAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :04/10/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.4205 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as Branch Manager of Ponniam
Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. It is stated that he is the sixth
son of Velloth Govindan and Nadayi Devi. According to the
petitioner, he was born on 4.1.1955. But, in the school records
and SSLC Book, his date of birth was entered as 5.1.1953. The
case of the petitioner is that the date of birth was wrongly
entered in the school records and SSLC Book. It is stated that
the parents of the petitioner were illiterate and they were not
aware of the consequence of a wrong date of birth being entered
in the school records. The petitioner made an application to
correct his date of birth in the school records. That application
was rejected by Ext.P2 order dated 2.5.2002 passed by the
Commissioner for Government Examinations. The reasons for
rejection of the application are the following :
“The evidence produced to prove the
claim of the petitioner are the documents read
WPC 4205/2010 2
as paper 2 to 6. The said documents and the
Enquiry Report read as paper 7 have been
examined.
The request of Sri.Nannanan Atavalath to
alter his date of birth from 5.1.1953 to 4.1.1955
has been examined in detail and found that the
extract of school admission register read as
paper 2 Sri.Nannanan was admitted to Std.I on
2.6.1958. If the correction is allowed he would
have his first schooling at the age of 3 years
and 5 months.
Further the applicant failed to produce all
corroborative evidences like birth certificates of
his brothers and sisters. In the absence of birth
certificates of other members of the family a
comparative study is not possible in this case.
Therefore, the request of Sri.Nannanan
Atavalath to correct his date of birth from
5.1.1953 to 4.1.1955 deserves no merit and
hence it is rejected.”
2. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 order before the
Government. The Government passed Ext.P5 order dated
20.12.2002, confirming the order passed by the Commissioner.
The petitioner challenged the orders in Writ Petition No.32361
WPC 4205/2010 3
of 2007. This Court directed the Government to reconsider the
matter afresh in the light of Exts.P1(4) and P1(5) and also the
attendant circumstances and dispose of the matter afresh. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exts.P1
(4) and P1(5) referred to in Ext.P5 order are respectively
Exts.P1(4) Birth Certificate and P1(5) affidavit marked in this
Writ Petition.
3. Thereafter, the Government passed Ext.P7 order
dated 10.9.2009 rejecting the request for correction of date of
birth of the petitioner in the school records and SSLC Book. In
Ext.P7 order, it was held that in the affidavit dated 8.9.1999
submitted by the petitioner before the Commissioner for
Government Examinations, the date of birth of the petitioner and
his brother and sister were noted as “as per Baptism”. That was
one of the reasons stated for rejection of the application. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this finding is
not correct. In Ext.P1 application, which is a form prescribed,
column 3 is Date of Birth as per Baptism. Column 4 is Date of
Birth as per Birth Register. The petitioner has shown the date
WPC 4205/2010 4
of birth in column 3 and 4 as 4.1.1955. The petitioner is
admittedly a Thiyya. In Ext.P7 order, it is said that there could
not be any Baptism, in these circumstances. It is true. But, in
the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner,
such a statement is not there, as wrongly mentioned in Ext.P7.
In Ext.P1 prescribed form, some dates are mentioned as against
the column “Date of Birth as per Baptism”. That by itself is not a
ground to reject the application.
4. Another ground stated in Ext.P7 is that the Birth
Certificates of the other members of the family were not made
available for a comparative study. In Ext.P1 (6) affidavit dated
18th May 1999, it is revealed that three children of the parents of
the petitioner died after delivery and that the birth or death
were not registered. In Ext.P1 (5) Birth Certificate issued under
the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, the date of birth of the
petitioner is shown as 4.1.1955. The petitioner wants to
incorporate that date in the school records and SSLC Book after
correction.
WPC 4205/2010 5
5. The ground on which the Commissioner rejected the
prayer for correction of date of birth as per Ext.P2, and by the
Government in Ext.P5 was that if the date of birth as stated by
the petitioner is accepted as correct, it would mean that the
petitioner was admitted in the school before attaining the age of
four years.
6. In Chandrika A.K. vs. State of Kerala and others
(2010(1) KHC 132), this Court took the view that rejection of
the application on the ground that the applicant had not attained
the age of five years as provided in Rule 5 of Chapter VI of KER
for admission in the first standard is not a ground for rejection of
the application. It was held thus :
“It is not the law that when a person’s
date of birth is allowed to be corrected, the
advantage obtained by the said person based
on the irregular entry, has to be forfeited.
What is provided under the relevant rule is an
opportunity to correct the date of birth in the
school records on the basis of cogent materials
which, if accepted, would lead to the conclusion
WPC 4205/2010 6
that the original entry has to be corrected.
Going by Rule 3 of Chapter VI KER a facility
has been provided to correct the date of birth
in the Admission Register and sub-rule (1A)
also provides for a facility for correcting the
date of birth in school records by the
commissioner of Government Examinations.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 is important. It provides
that “if the authority referred to in sub-rule (1)
is satisfied after necessary enquiries that the
change applied for could be granted, he will
issue an order to make the alteration…….”
Therefore, the enquiry is confined to the
question whether the original entry requires
alteration, in the light of the materials made
available by the applicant. If the applicant can
conclusively prove that the original entry does
not tally with the correct date of birth, based on
sufficient materials, power is given to the
authority to order an alteration. It is not the
law, therefore, that the advantage obtained by
the irregular entry, if at all anything is there,
will be detrimental to the applicant. The
prohibition contained in Rule 5 of Chapter VI
have to be understood in the light of the above
fact.”
WPC 4205/2010 7
7. The reasons stated by the first respondent to reject
the application submitted by the petitioner are apparently not
correct, going by the records. As held in Chandrika A.K. vs. State
of Kerala and others (2010(1) KHC 132), the reasons stated by
the Commissioner for rejection is also unsustainable. The
Commissioner as well as the Government did not advert to the
Birth Certificate issued under the Registration of Births and
Deaths Act. In Ext.P6 judgment, a specific direction was issued
to consider the Birth Certificate, but the first respondent failed
to advert to the Birth Certificate.
For the aforesaid reasons, Exts.P2, P5 and P7 orders are
quashed. The Commissioner for Government Examinations shall
consider the application afresh and pass orders after affording
an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The
Commissioner shall take into account all the relevant facts and
the documents produced by the petitioner and shall arrive at a
conclusion as to the correct date of birth of the petitioner. The
petitioner shall have an opportunity to produce such other
evidence and documents as may be relevant before the
WPC 4205/2010 8
Commissioner. The Commissioner shall pass orders, as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl