IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 225 of 2010(C)
1. SREEJA.P,D/O.LATE MURALEEDHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN,
... Respondent
2. PRINCIPAL,KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA,
For Petitioner :SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
For Respondent :M/S.IYER & IYER, SC.KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :21/06/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 225 of 2010
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 9th day of June, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner completed the plus two course from the Kendriya
Vidyalaya at Kanjikode in Palakkad. In the T.C issued to her, her date
of birth is shown as 8-7-1991 instead of 8-9-1991. Therefore, the
petitioner applied for correction of her date of birth in the transfer
certificate and obtained an order in W.P(C) No. 23173/2009 directing
the 1st respondent to do the needful. However, the petitioner has
been informed that the correction cannot be made since, as per the
original birth certificate, the entry is 8-7-1991. According to the
petitioner, as per Ext. P1 birth certificate, the petitioner’s date of
birth is 8-9-1991.
2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit producing
Ext. R1(a) which is a certificate produced at the time of admission
from the military certifying that the date of birth of the petitioner is
8-7-1991. According to the 2nd respondent, in view of these two
conflicting certificates issued by competent authorities, the 2nd
respondent is not in a position to ascertain the correct date of birth
and therefore the desired correction cannot be made.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
Both Ext. P 1 and Ext. R1(a) were produced by the petitioner
as proof regarding date of birth of the petitioner. One is issued by the
Military Hospital and the other is issued from the Field Regiment
where the petitioner’s father was working. Admittedly, both show
different dates of birth. When a person requests for correction of date
of birth, it is the duty of that person to prove the correct date of birth
by producing appropriate documents. Here, the petitioner herself has
produced two different documents showing two different dates of
birth. That being so, unless the petitioner explains the discrepancy to
the satisfaction of the 1st respondent, this Court cannot direct the 1st
respondent to make the correction. Therefore, leaving it open to the
W.P.C. No. 225/2010 -: 2 :-
petitioner to convince the 1st respondent by producing reliable
documents in proof of the petitioner’s actual date of birth, this writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/