The petitioner entered service in the clerical cadre in the South Malabar Gramin Bank on 21.1.1981. In course of time, she was promoted and she is presently working as Assistant Manager in the Kannur Branch of the Kerala Gramin Bank, which was formed by the amalgamation of the South Malabar Gramin Bank and the North Malabar Gramin Bank pursuant to a notification issued by the Government of India in that regard on 8.7.2013. 2. At the time of entry in service the petitioner had declared that her date of birth is 20.5.1954, the date of birth as given in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, a copy of which is produced and marked as Ext.P2. The age of retirement of employees of Kerala Gramin Bank is 60 years. If the petitioner's date of birth is taken as 20.5.1954, she will retire from service today on attaining the age of 60 years. The petitioner has averred that though as per the entries in the register of births and deaths maintained by the Kodanchery Grama Panchayat, her date of birth is 9.6.1955, when she was admitted in the school her date of birth was mistakenly given as 20.5.1954, that on noticing the said fact she submitted Ext.P3 application to the Secretary to Government, General Education Department requesting for correction of her date of birth in the school records as 9.6.1955 in the place of 20.5.1954 after paying the requisite fee, that she thereafter filed Ext.P4 representation dated 18.3.2014 before the Chairman of the Kerala Gramin Bank followed by Ext.P5 representation dated 8.4.2014 before the third respondent Chief Manager, that the third respondent in turn informed her by Ext.P6 letter dated 17.4.2014 that her request for correction of date of birth in the service records cannot be permitted, that her request in Ext.P4 stands rejected and that for all purposes her date of birth will be reckoned as 20.5.1954.
3. The pleadings disclose that thereafter, by Ext.P7 letter dated 24.4.2014 the General Manager of the Kerala Gramin Bank informed the petitioner that she is due for retirement on 31.5.2014 on superannuation. In the meanwhile, the State Government addressed the petitioner's employer and on receipt of the letter from the State Government, the General Manager of the Kerala Gramin Bank sent Ext.P8 letter to the Special Secretary, Public Education (G) Department informing the Government that the rules prevailing in the bank do not permit correction of the date of birth as requested by the petitioner and her request has been considered and rejected. In the instant writ petition filed on 8.5.2014, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
i) To call for the records which lead to the issuance of Exts.P6 and P8 and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction on respondents 2 to 4 to permit the petitioner to continue in service till 30.6.2015.
4. The principal contention raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner's date of birth is 9.6.1955 and not 20.5.1954, that she has applied for correction of the date of birth in the school records and therefore, the employer ought not have sent Exts.P6 and P8 letters. It is contended that the finding in Ext.P6 that the provisions in the rules do not permit correction of the date of birth is false. The petitioner has also also averred that no additional financial burden will be caused to any of the respondents and no one will be affected, if her date of birth is corrected.
5. When the writ petition came up for consideration before me on 23.5.2014, on noticing the recital in Ext.P1 extract from the register of births and deaths that the petitioner's birth was registered only on 14.3.2014, I passed the following order:-
“After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that before this Court proceeds to adjudicate on the rights of the parties, this Court has to ascertain whether the petitioner's birth was registered on 14.3.2014, after obtaining an order in terms of sub section (3) of section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Since the petitioner has not chosen to implead the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Kodanchery Grama Panchayat, it has become necessary to implead the Secretary, Kodanchery Grama Panchayat who is also the Registrar of Births and Deaths of Kodanchery Grama Panchayat .
I accordingly suo motu implead the Secretary, Kodanchery Grama Panchayat, Kozhikode District, Kerala State, as additional fifth respondent in the writ petition. Registry to carry out consequential amendments to the cause title.
Admit. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. Sri.Devan Ramachandran, learned standing counsel takes notice for respondents 2 to 4. Petitioner to serve notice on the additional fifth respondent by special messenger at her expense.
Post on 29.5.2014 in the admissions list. On that day the additional fifth respondent shall state whether the petitioner's birth was registered after following the procedure prescribed in sub section (3) of section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
Registry to communicate a copy of this order to the additional fifth respondent along with the notice.”
By that order, I suo motu impleaded the Secretary, Kodanchery Grama Panchayat, Kozhikode District as the additional fifth respondent.
6. The additional fifth respondent has entered appearance through counsel and filed a statement. The said statement is extracted below:-
“1) The above writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 and P8 communications issued to the petitioner, writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass an order on Ext.P3 application, writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 to permit the petitioner to continue in service till 30.6.2015. The panchayat was impleaded as additional 5th respondent. As per the order of this Honourable Court dated 23.5.2014 the additional 5th respondent has been directed to state whether the petitioner's birth was registered after following the procedure prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
2) It is respectfully submitted that the registration of birth of the petitioner was not in accordance with section 13 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Prior to the enactment of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, births and deaths were registered in the concerned Village Office. On the promulgation of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, the local authority was given the power to register births and deaths. All the births and deaths registered with the concerned village office were transferred to the concerned local authority. As per the records available, the birth of the petitioner was registered on 9.6.1955 on which day she was born. As per the records her name is shown as Anna and the residence is shown as “Thenmalayil”. The name of the petitioner was changed as AMMINI.T.U. And that of her father was changed as ULAHANNAN as per the proceedings of the Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths dated 12.3.2014 and appropriate corrections were made in the births and deaths register maintained in the panchayat.”
7. During the course of arguments today, learned counsel appearing for the additional fifth respondent submitted with reference to copies of documents which were made available to me for perusal that pursuant to an order passed by the Director of Panchayats, who is also the Chief Registrar appointed by the State Government by a notification dated 31.3.1970 issued under section 4 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, the name of a child (Vide entry No.37/55 in the register of births) was corrected as Ammini, the name of the father of the child was corrected as Ulahannan and that it was thereupon that Ext.P1 extract from the register of births and deaths was issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel also made available to me for perusal a photostat copy of the relevant page of the register of births and deaths maintained by the Kodanchery Grama Panchayat.
8. Sri.Devan Ramachandran, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Gramin Bank submitted that in the record of service maintained in terms of rule 12 of the North Malabar Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation, 2000, the date of birth of the petitioner is entered as 20.5.1954, which corresponds to her date of birth in the school records, that it was based on the information furnished by the petitioner that her date of birth was thus entered and there is no provision in the Regulation which permits correction of the date of birth, that too at this distance of time. The learned counsel also submitted that apart from the said fact, so long as the school records are not corrected, no change can be effected in the petitioner's date of birth in the service records.
9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by Sri.George Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Lowsy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala, Sri.Devan Ramachandran, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 and Sri.P.A.Harish, learned counsel appearing for the additional fifth respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record including the records made available to me for perusal by the learned counsel appearing for the additional fifth respondent. The records made available by the learned counsel appearing for the additional fifth respondent disclose that Ext.P1 was issued pursuant to an order passed by the Director of Panchayats/Chief Registrar on 12.3.2014. By that order, the Chief Registrar permitted correction of the name of a child born on 9.6.1955 as also the name of her father. A copy of the register of births and deaths maintained by the additional fifth respondent, which was furnished to me by the learned counsel appearing for the additional fifth respondent discloses that in June 1955 the birth of a girl child named Anna born to Eli, (the mother) aged 37 years, residing in the locality known as Thenmalayil was registered. It was that entry which was corrected as per the order passed by the Director of Panchayats by correcting the name of the child as Ammini.T.U. instead of Anna and the name of the father as Ulahannan in the place of the name originally entered. The name of the father as originally entered is not legible. The register also discloses that the child born on 9.5.1955 to Eli was her fifth child. The petitioner has not disclosed these facts in the writ petition. She has not explained how her name and the name of her father were mistakenly entered in the register of births and deaths. She has also not disclosed how it came to her notice.
10. That apart, going by the provisions contained in section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1969 the Chief Registrar appointed under section 4 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 cannot exercise the powers of the Registrar appointed under section 7 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and to correct entries in the register of births and deaths. Under section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1969 it is only the Registrar who is competent to correct or cancel entries in the register of births and deaths. The Chief Registrar, though a superior officer in the heirarchy, is not empowered to correct entries in the register. The Chief Registrar cannot on the terms of section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1969 exercise the powers of the Registrar. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on the order dated 12.3.2014 issued by the Chief Registrar to effect corrections in the register of births and deaths. In any case, in the absence of any material to prove that entry 37/55 in the register of births and deaths relates to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on Ext.P5 to contend that the name of the petitioner was wrongly given at the time of registration of her birth as Anna and it was later corrected as Ammini. The petitioner has no case that she was not aware when she entered service that her birth was registered in June 1955 in the register of births and deaths and that it was due to inadvertence that a wrong date of birth was given in the school records. The date of birth in the service records is one furnished by the petitioner and in the absence of any case for the petitioner that she was misled into furnishing a wrong date of birth, I am of the opinion that at this distance of time she cannot seek correction of the service records so as to facilitate continuance in service till 30.6.2015. Even in Ext.P4, the case set out by the petitioner is that she noticed the difference in her date of birth only recently. From the conduct of the petitioner and the attendant circumstances, I am not persuaded to accept the petitioner's contention that relying on Ext.P5, the service records should be corrected accepting 9.6.1955 as her date of birth.
For the reasons stated above I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
ahg.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
------------------------------------------ W.P(C)No.12259 of 2014 ------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
31st May, 2014