High Court Kerala High Court

B.Gopalakrishnan Kartha vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2007

Kerala High Court
B.Gopalakrishnan Kartha vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1038 of 2007()


1. B.GOPALAKRISHNAN KARTHA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.ALI

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :12/04/2007

 O R D E R
                P.R.RAMAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.

                ========================

                         W.A. NO. 1038 OF 2007

                  ======================

               Dated this the 12th day of April, 2007


                              J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

The appellant is the petitioner who commenced his service

as Lower Division Clerk in the Government High School in

December 1990, and as on that date, the date of birth entered in

the SSLC Book was 25/7/54. Accordingly, the service book entries

were also made in tune with the entires in SSLC Book. Several

years thereafter, according to the petitioner, he found out a

mistake in the entries relating to the date of birth and ultimately

got corrected and so automatically service records should also be

corrected. We have already taken the view that there is no

fundamental right for a person to get the date of birth corrected

in the service records. Admittedly the petitioner did not apply for

correction of the date of birth in the service records in terms of

Ext.P7 Government Order. But according to the petitioner in

similar situation, relaxation has been made by the Government in

appropriate cases, considering the hardship that may be caused

WA 1038/2007

: 2 :

especially when the mistake is not that of the petitioner.

According to him, he has already submitted representation before

the Government as Exhibit P9. In the circumstances, he prays

that Ext.P9 may be directed to be considered and disposed of.

But the learned Single Judge found as per the judgment impugned

that the Government had already rejected the representation

earlier filed by the petitioner and in terms of Ext.P7, no relief

could be granted. Petitioner is not able to make out a case for

interference in this appeal. However, we make it clear that the

dismissal of the original petition will not stand in the way of

Government considering the matter, if they are so pleased in

exercise of their power as an Appointing Authority.

Writ appeal is dismissed subject to what is stated above.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp