IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 34816 of 2007(T)
1. KALAVATHY M.S., U.D.CLERK, OFFICE OF
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL,
4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM.
For Petitioner :SMT.P.V.ASHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :26/11/2007
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No. 34816 of 2007
--------------------------
Dated this the 26th November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner, who is working as U.D.Clerk in the office of the
Sub Registrar, Ernakulam was appointed under Exhibit-P1 Order
in which her date of birth is shown as 2.12.1952 consistent with
the date of birth in the S.S.L.C. Book which is given in Exhibit-
P2. In terms of Rule 60 of the KS.R., a person whose date of
birth is 2nd of a month completes the age of 55 on the
afternoon of the previous day. In terms of 60A, it enables him to
continue upto the last date of the month which in the case of the
petitioner is 31.12.2007. By a clerical mistake, the date of birth
of the petitioner was entered as 1.12.1952 in the service book.
This was noticed by the petitioner only when she wanted
pension papers to be processed. Request was made in this
regard to the Head of the Department and it was rejected under
Exhibits P5 and P7 on the premise that what is required by the
petitioner is a correction of the date of birth in her service book.
This requires orders from the Government.
2. After having seen Exhibits P1 and P3, I am of the
view that what seems to have taken place in the case of the
petitioner is quite unusual. It is a clerical error which might
W.P ( C) No. 34816 of 2007
2
have happened at the hands of the person who made an entry in
the service book when she joined service. What is sought for by
the petitioner is not a correction of her date of birth. Even in
Exhibit-P1 appointment order the date of birth is correctly shown
and the same is consistent with Exhibit-P2 S.S.LC. Book. What
is required is the correction of typographical error which could
be done by the Government.
3. In the result, the petitioner may file a representation
before the Government pointing out these aspects within a
period of three weeks from today. If so, the 1st respondent shall
de hors Exhibits P5 and P7 take a decision thereon in the light
of the observations made above, within one month thereafter.
The petitioner shall be permitted to continue in service till a
decision is taken on the representation by the Government or till
31.12.2007, whichever is earlier. It is made clear that
petitioner’s request need only be treated as a request for
correction of a typographical error .
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No. 34816 of 2007
2
K.THANKAPPAN,J
CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999
W.P ( C) No. 34816 of 2007
2
ORDER
25th May, 2007