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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14693

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MR. MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
BINDU P R – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(KAT) NO. 446 OF 2025 | OA (EKM) NO.1478 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN, SRI.R.PRADEEP KUMAR, SMT.NAMITHA GEORGE, SMT.STENEY K.A.
For the Respondents: learned Senior Government Pleader

A government employee's request for correction of date of birth in service records is subject to strict timelines; delays beyond prescribed periods can invalidate such corrections.

Headnote:(A) Articles 227 and 14 of the Constitution of India, Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957, G.O.(P) No. 45/91/P&ARD - Request for correction of date of birth - Petitioner’s application for correction denied based on delay beyond prescribed period; necessity of accurate date of birth in service records emphasized. (Para 6 and 14)

(B) Correction of date of birth - A government servant cannot claim correction of date of birth if the application is made after a legally defined time limit; lapse of reasonable time impacts entitlement. (Paras 5, 6 and 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a government employee, sought to correct her date of birth from 30.05.1973 to 07.06.1974, which was recorded in her service records incorrectly due to prior ignorance. The Tribunal dismissed her application citing delayed request beyond the specified five-year period.

Findings of Court:
The Court found no reasons to interfere with the Tribunal’s order as the delay in requesting correction was excessively long and without sufficient justification.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could have her date of birth corrected in her service records despite the delay beyond the five-year limit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that corrections in service records must adhere to stipulated timelines; failure to comply results in denial of the right to correct birth records.

Result: Original petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. fact background about applicant's service and date of birth issue. (Para 1 , 2)
2. aggrieved party's contentions regarding dismissal of application. (Para 3 , 4)
3. tribunal's reasoning concerning delay in applications. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. high court's supervisory jurisdiction under article 227. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. legal principles governing applications for correcting date of birth. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.1478 of 2025, on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short), filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner entered service as a High School Assistant (Malayalam) on 20.06.2000. She was promoted as Headmistress/Assistant Educational Officer on 17.09.2020. The date of her superannuation from service is 31.05.2029. The petitioner pleads that she is a member of the scheduled caste community. Due to ignorance, illiteracy and adverse social background, her date of birth was wrongly recorded as 30.05.1973, instead of 07.06.1974 in the admission register, when she was admitted to primary school. The wrong date of birth was carried over to her matriculation certificate, and it was entered in her service book as well. On coming to know about this mistake in the date of birth, the petitioner obtained Annexure A3 birth certificate from Kongad Panchayat on 15.07.2022, and in that certificate her date of birth is recorded as 07.06.1974. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application before the Government to condone the delay in applying to correct her date of birth in the matriculation certificate. Considering her request, the Government by Annexure A4 order dated 19.03.2025 condoned the delay in submitting the application for correction of date of birth in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (‘SSLC’ for short) to the Commissioner of Examination; however, with a rider that the petitioner will not have right to correct her date of birth in SSLC/service records on the strength of Annexure A4 order alone. Pursuant to Annexure A4 order, the 2nd respondent Joint Commissioner for Government Examination, issued Annexure A5 order dated 21.05.2025 directing the Secretary to the Commissioner for Government Examination to make necessary change in the entries regarding the date of birth in the certificate issued to the petitioner and tabulation registers/database concerned. Accordingly, the date of birth of the petitioner was corrected in the SSLC as 07.06.1974. Aggrieved by the rider in Annexure A4 Government Order, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Government which was rejected as per Annexure A7 order dated 08.09.2025, referring to G.O.(P)No.45/91/P & ARD dated 30.12.1991 stating that such a request for correction of date of birth ought to have been submitted within five years of entry in service. Being aggrieved by Annexure A7 order, the petitioner filed the original application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Call for the records leading to Annexure A4 and set aside the same to the extent it employs a rider that the correction of date of birth cannot be used for making corresponding correction in service records.

b) Call for the records leading to Annexure A7 and set aside the same fully;

c) Direct the 1st respondent to consider correcting the date of birth of the applicant as 07.06.1974 in her service records with immediate effect;

d) Declare that the applicant is entitled to get her date of birth corrected as 07.06.1974 in her service records and consequential benefits flowing therefrom”.

3. After appreciating the rival contentions raised by the petitioner and

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