SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(Ker) 83

Judges : JOSEPH VITHAYATHIL,T.K.JOSEPH
Kesava Panicker - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 28 of 1955 (T)
Decided On : 08/06/1956
Advocates Appeared :
T. K. Narayana Pillai; For Petitioner R. Narayana Pillai; For Respondent

The judgment emphasizes the Government's discretion in considering evidence for correcting a public servant's date of birth, and the absence of a duty to align the service register with other records.

Headnote:

Art.226 of the Constitution of India - S.45 of the Specific Relief Act - The judgment discusses the rejection of an application by the State of Travancore-Cochin to correct the date of birth of a public servant in his service book. The court considered various documents and circulars issued by the Government, and the petitioner's claim of discrimination and violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. The court ultimately rejected the petition, noting the petitioner's grievances and leaving the matter to the Government for reconsideration.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a public servant, sought to correct his date of birth in the service book, which was wrongly entered as 28th Mithunam 1076 instead of 28th Mithunam 1080. The Government rejected the application, citing the entry in the school records and various circulars issued by the Government.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Government had conducted an enquiry and considered all evidence presented by the petitioner. The court rejected the petition, noting the petitioner's grievances and leaving the matter to the Government for reconsideration.

Issues: The issues raised included the admissibility of the petition, the correctness of the date of birth entered in the school register, and the consideration of documents other than school records as proof of age.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Government had not failed to exercise its jurisdiction, had not acted illegally in refusing to consider other documents as proof of age, and had not been influenced by extraneous considerations. The court also found no violation of Art.14 of the Constitution and no duty for the Government to align the service register with other records.

Final Decision: The court rejected the petition, leaving the matter to the Government for reconsideration.

Judgment :-

1. This is a petition presented under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and S.45 of the Specific Relief Act for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders quashing the order passed by the respondent - the State of Travancore-Cochin, R M2-10883/54/RD, dated 22nd June 1955 rejecting the application of the petitioner, a public servant for correcting his age in the service book and for a writ of mandamus, directions or orders compelling the respondent to reconsider the application in the light of documents produced by him and to bring his date of birth in the service book in conformity with that recorded in other Government records.

2. The averments in the affidavit filed along with the petition are the following:- The petitioner is the Oodukur Settlement Officer, Kuzhithurai. He entered Government service in the year 1115 M.E. as a Magistrate. His date of birth was wrongly entered in the service book as 28th Mithunam 1076. His real date of birth is 28th Mithunam 1080. An application made by him to correct the mistake was rejected by Government by order dated 22nd September 1943 on the ground that his date of birth as shown in the school records was 28th Mithunam 1976. This order is wrong. Art.352F(c) of the Travancore Service Regulations provides that the following documents shall be considered as satisfactory proof of age of an officer.

1. An authenticated extract from the birth register or the baptismal register or the English School Leaving Certificate, or the admission register of a school or college where the officer last studied or a certificate by a Magistrate or other well known and trustworthy persons in the town or village;

2. Original copy of the horoscope, or correspondence at the time of birth supported by a declaration before the Head of the Office; or

3. An affidavit of the parent of the applicant or a close relative who has knowledge of the approximate date of birth of the applicant signed before an officer who is competent to administer oath".

3. On 30th January 1950 Government issued a Circular (Ext. A) calling upon the Heads of Departments and Offices to issue necessary instructions to their subordinates to get their service records examined and any defects or irregularities in respect of their dates of birth as entered therein rectified on proper proof. A period of three months from 1st February 1950 was allowed for the purpose. On 22nd February 1950 Government issued another circular (Ext. B) in which it was stated that in the case of graduates the entry in the college certificate and that in the case of non-graduates the entry in the school records would be accepted as correct age. By another circular (Ext. C) dated 21st June 1950 Government extended the time for correcting mistakes in the service books as regards date of birth by a further period of three months from 1st May 1950. Representations were made to Government that there were persons in Government service who had not attended any recognised school and who are therefore not able to produce school certificates for verification of age as required by the circular dated 22nd February 1950. Question was raised as to whether in such cases the documents mentioned in Art.352F(c) of the Travancore Service Regulations might not be accepted as satisfactory proof of age. In a circular (Ext. D) dated 6th November 1950 Government stated that no general order accepting any document other than college certificate or school records need be issued and that every doubtful case would be considered on its own merits by the Administrative Section of the Government Secretariat and appropriate action taken by Government to accept proper satisfactory proof of age as the circumstances of the case justified.

4. On 22nd July 1954 the petitioner presented an application (Ext. E) before the Government praying for review of the order dated 22nd September 1943 and for entering the date of birth of the petitioner in his service book as 28th Mith






































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top