Dismissed

R. Sivadasan Nair v. the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers'Union Ltd.

Kerala HC4 Dec 2017WP(C)/17836/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a date of birth correction request in service records. The court dismissed the petition by applying a prior precedent which held that such correction was without jurisdiction as the applicant had applied after turning 50.

What the court decided

AI extract

R. Sivadasan Nair Vs the Thiruvananthapuram Regional… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 17836 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

R.SIVADASAN NAIR, (SENIOR MANAGER (HRD), M/S THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCER'S UNION LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), S-28,GOKUL, SANKAR NAGAR, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SMT.P.ANJANA SRI.P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' UNION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KSHEERABHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶11

2. MANAGING COMMITTEE/BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRCMPU LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KSHEERABHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶12

BY SRI.K.ANAND,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

WP(C).No. 17836 of 2016 (D)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 28/5/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,

¶19

STATE OF KERALA.

¶20

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10/6/2008 GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER

¶21

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.8.2008 GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER

¶22

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2015 OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶23

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK CONTAINING CORRECTED DATE OF BIRTH

¶24

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9/2/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENCLOSURES

¶25

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE NO.TRU:MD:26:2016 DATED 27/4/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶26

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9/5/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶27

P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULATION 17(C)OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶28

P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TRU:MD 26:2016 DATED 17/5/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

¶35

W.P(C) No.17836 of 2016

¶36

Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2017

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The petitioner, who was Senior Manager (HRD) of the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd., has approached this Court in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P10 order dated 17.5.2016 of the first respondent, whereby the request made by the petitioner to correct his date of birth as '30.7.1958' instead of '29.5.1978' in the service register maintained by the first respondent Society under Rule 197 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules stands rejected and accordingly the petitioner was informed that he will be relieved from service with effect from 31.5.2016 afternoon.

¶39

On 24.5.2016, when this Writ Petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents took notice and sought time to file counter affidavit. This Court has granted an interim direction to the effect that the retirement of the petitioner on 31.5.2016 will be subject to the result of this

¶40

W.P(C) No.17836 of 2016 :-2-:

¶41

Writ Petition. This Court has also recorded the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that if the petitioner succeeds in the Writ Petition, the respondents are prepared to pay the entire amount due to him as if he was continuing in service till 31.7.2016.

¶42

Now the issue raised in this Writ Petition is covered against the petitioner by judgment of this Court dated 28.7.2017 in W.P(C) No.17650/2017, which is affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1827/2017. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 15.9.2017 in W.A.No.1827/2017 reads thus:

¶43

“6. We have considered the matter and we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. Rule 3 of Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) reads as follows:

¶44

“3. Alteration of Date of Birth etc.-(1). The name of a pupil, his religion, his caste and his date of birth once entered in the Admission Register shall not be altered except with the sanction of the authority specified by the Government in this behalf by notification in the gazette. Applications for such alterations and corrections should be submitted by the parent or guardian, if the pupil is still on the rolls of any school and by the pupil himself if he is not on the rolls of any school. All such applications shall be forwarded through

¶45

W.P(C) No.17836 of 2016

¶46

:-3-:

¶47

the Headmaster with satisfactory evidence. (Court fee stamps to the value of One Rupee shall be affixed on such application)

¶48

(Provided that the authority notified by the Government shall not alter such details entered in the Admission Register without the support of a Certificate from the Competent Revenue Authority concerned or the Register of Birth and Death concerned, as the case may be)

¶49

(1A) A time limit of fifteen years from the date of leaving the school or the date of appearing for the S.S.L.C. Examination for the last time whichever is earlier is fixed for entertaining requests for correction of date of birth in school records by the Commissioner of Government Examinations.

¶50

NOTE :- The Government shall consider requests for condonation of delay in making application for correction of date of birth in school records, in deserving cases, on merits, provided that the applicant is within 50 years of age as per the original entry in the school records.

¶51

A reference to Rule 3(1A) shows that ordinarily, a correction of date of birth is to be made within 15 years of the issuance of the Certificate. The authorities, however, by virtue of a note appended to the said Rule, have power to condone the delay but even that power is restricted and no such condonation could be made after the applicant has attained the age of 50 years. Therefore, a reading of the said rule in full shows that the power can be exercised

¶52

W.P(C) No.17836 of 2016 :-4-:

¶53

only subject to certain restrictions.

¶54

Here, admittedly, the appellant had made application only a few months before his superannuation at the age of 58 years. Therefore, on his own admitted pleadings, the application for correction of SSLC Book was made atleast eight years after he had attained the age of 50 years. If that be so, the authorities had no jurisdiction or discretion in the matter and the SSLC Book could not have been corrected. The Statute did not give that power. If that be so, the power which was exercised to correct the SSLC Book was without jurisdiction and dehors Rule 3 of Chapter VI of the KER aforesaid. It cannot thus be an order validly passed in exercise of any valid conferment of jurisdiction. This order, was void ab initio and fit to be ignored. If that be so, the dictum of the Full Bench would not apply at all as the said order became non existing. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the learned Single Judge did not err in refusing to exercise jurisdiction in the matter and dismissing the writ petition. We dismiss the appeal accordingly.”

¶55

In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶56

¶57

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

R. Sivadasan Nair v. the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers'Union Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

R. Sivadasan Nair v. the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers'Union Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnappa Poojari Vs B.Puthu Poojari

Kunjukutty Vs Komalam

Kurian George Vs Annamma George

Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. Vs Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.

C.Balakrishnan Vs Kasaragode District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

A.Unnikrishnan Vs the Nilambur Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.