P. Pazhanal vs The Secretary to Government, Chief Engineer, Executive Engineer and The Curator

P.N. Ravindran, J.—The Appellant is the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11555 of 2010. She entered service as a worker on 15.4.1971. She is presently an SLR worker. In her service book, her date of birth is entered as 1.7.1951. The said entry was made on the basis of her declaration. The Appellant has not undergone studies in any school. Therefore, no school leaving certificate was produced. Her birth was not registered and therefore a birth certificate was also not produced. The date of birth in the service book was entered based on her declaration. Though the Appellant entered service on 15.4.1971, she moved the Government for correction of the date of birth only long thereafter. The said request was rejected by Ext.P7 order dated 5.12.2009.

The instant writ petition was thereupon filed challenging Ext.P7 and seeking correction of the date of birth from 1.7.1951 to 1.7.1957. Reliance is placed on Ext.P1 letter sent by the Curator of Malampuzha Gardens where the Appellant is working wherein the Appellant''s date of birth is mentioned as 1.7.1957. The learned single Judge considered the Appellant''s contentions and held that in the absence of any cogent evidence to prove that the date of birth of the Appellant is 1.7.1957, the stand taken by the Government in Ext.P7 cannot be said to be illegal.

We heard Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. We have also gone through the pleadings and materials on record. Apart from placing reliance on Ext.P1 wherein the date of birth of the Appellant is mentioned as 1.7.1957 with reference to a medical certificate, the Appellant has not produced any cogent material to support her claim that she was born on 1.7.1957. Though in Ext.P1 letter the Appellant''s date of birth was shown as 1.7.1957 based on a medical certificate, we are of the opinion that such an entry cannot be given any sanctity. A doctor can at best only estimate the age of a patient whom he has examined. He cannot give a definite finding that his patient was born on a particular date especially in the absence of any corresponding document in that regard. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no reliance can be placed on Ext.P1 to hold that the Appellant''s date of birth is 1.7.1957.

We, therefore, find no grounds to entertain this appeal. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.