Kerala High Court
Bindu P R vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 446 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2025 IN OA (EKM) NO.1478 OF
2025 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
BINDU P R, AGED 51 YEARS
W/O MOHANDAS A K WORKING AS ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER [ A.E.O.] EDUCATION [GENERAL] PARALI SUB
DISTRICT PARALI SUB DISTRICT PARALI, PALAKKAD RESIDING
AT ANAKKALLIL HOUSE, MANNUR WEST POTTAKUNNU P O,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678642
BY ADVS.
SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
SRI.R.PRADEEP KUMAR
SMT.NAMITHA GEORGE
SMT.STENEY K.A.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, EDUCATION [ GENERAL ]
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT (ANNEX), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS
DIRECTORATE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER PAREEKSHA
BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
3 DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, ROBINSON ROAD PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
27.01.2026, THE COURT ON 26.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
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,
4
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
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.
5
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
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 the respondents, by the order dated 07.10.2025,
6
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
the Tribunal dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 5 to 7
and the last paragraph of that order read thus:
“5. But nowhere it is stated that the age of the Government
servant is to be reckoned on the basis of entries other than
what is contained in the service records. She can continue
till she attains the age of 56, only on the basis of the entries
in her service book. In this context, it is relevant to note
Rule 143 of Part III KSR, which reads as follows:
Every step in an employee’s official life must be
recorded in his Service Book, and each entry must be
attested by the Head of his Office, or, if he himself is
the Head of an Office, by his immediate superior. The
Head of the Office must see that all entries are duly
made and attested, and that the book contains no
erasure or overwriting all corrections being neatly
made and properly attested.
Applicant can claim continuance in service only in tune with
the entries duly recorded in the service book.
6. The Government has by GO(P)45/1991/P&ARD dated
30.12.1991 fixed a time limit i.e five years from entry of
service, for submitting application for correction of date of
birth in the service records. In the present case the
applicant who entered in service in the year 2000 and has
been working as Assistant Educational Officer, submitted an
application for condonation of delay to get her date of birth
corrected in the SSLC Book, before the Government, only
in the year 2024. The Government considered her request
7
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410and has condoned the delay in submission of application for
correction of date of birth in SSLC book as per Annexure
A4. In Annexure A4 the first respondent has rightly stated
therein that the applicant will not have any right to correct
her date of birth in SSLC/Service Records. The application
for correction of date of birth in the service records is
rejected in tune with the Government Order dated
30.12.1991, according to which, a person shall have the
right to apply for correction of date of birth in the service
records only within five years from his entry into service. In
the present case the applicant’s date of birth was corrected
in the SSLC book in the year 2025. Government has on valid
reasons rejected the request of the applicant as per
Annexure A7 order.
7. The judgment in Union of India v. Sunny Joseph
(2024 (4) KHC 39) relied on by the learned Counsel for
the applicant does not in any manner help the applicant, as
there is no exceptional circumstances arising in this case.
Even in that case the rejection of application was upheld. In
the light of the well settled position of law, as laid down by
the Apex Court in Union of India v. Harnam Singh
[(1993) 2 SCC 162], Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran
[1994 Supp (1) SCC 155], State of M.P. v. Premlal
Shrivas [(2011) 9 SCC 664], LIC v. R. Basavaraju,
[(2016) 15 SCC 781], Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v.
Shyam Kishore Singh, [(2020) 3 SCC 411], Karnataka
Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. v. T.P.
Nataraja [2021) 12 SCC 27], Annexure A7 order does
8
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
not warrant any interference.
The Original Application is accordingly dismissed”.
4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the original
application, the petitioner is now before this Court with this
original petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
in the decisions referred to in paragraph 7 of the impugned order
of the Tribunal, the aggrieved therein approached the competent
authority or the Tribunal at the fag end of service or after
retirement. But in the instant case, the petitioner is having service
up to 2029. The petitioner is entitled to continue in service till she
attains the age of 56 years as per Rule 60 of Part I of Kerala
Service Rules. In Annexure A7 order dated 08.09.2025, reference
was made to Ext.P3 government order dated 30.12.1991, to reject
the request of the petitioner seeking correction of the date of birth
in the service book. But the restriction in Ext.P3 government order
is not an absolute one, since it was directed that each case would
be considered by the government on its own merits.
9
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that, as per Rule 3 of Chapter VI of Kerala
Education Rules 1959, alteration of date of birth shall be done
within 15 years from the date of leaving the school. In the instant
case, the Government condoned the said delay by Annexure A4
order, making it clear that the said condonation of delay will not
automatically entitle the petitioner to claim correction in the SSLC
or in the service records. It is not within a reasonable time that
the petitioner made the request for correction of the date of birth
in the service book. Therefore, there is no illegality in the
impugned order of the Tribunal.
8. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under
clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
9. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
[(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope
and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
10
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both
administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way
as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference
under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the
wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
10. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised
11
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a ‘bull in a china shop’, to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
11. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in
exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order
of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent
perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to
it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
12. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
12
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
13. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or
judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is
called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or
13
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law
or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
14. In the instant case, though several judgments were
referred to by the Tribunal for arriving at a conclusion that the
petitioner had not approached within a reasonable time for
correction of date of birth in her service book, it is sufficient to
note the observation of this Court in paragraphs 5 of the
judgment in Ravindran v. State of Kerala [ILR 2000 (2) KER
55], wherein this Court held thus:
“5. A Government Servant, after entry into service acquires
the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as
fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating
conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed with
on other grounds contained in relevant service rules after
following the procedure prescribed therein. The date of birth
entered in service records of a civil servant is, thus of
utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue
in service stands decided by its entry in the service record.
A Government servant who has declared his age at the
initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded
14
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is
open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of
birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to
his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded
and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for
seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant
must do so without any unreasonable delay.
In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction
of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on
grounds of latches or stale claims, is generally applied by
the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the
Government to fix a time limit, in the service rules, after
which no application for correction of date of birth of a
Government servant can be entertained. A Government
servant who makes an application for correction of date of
birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as
a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if
he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of
birth is clearly erroneous. The law of limitation may operate
harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and courts
or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over
their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire.
Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would
determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to
abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his
actual age. Indeed, as held by apex Court. In State of
Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka 1970 (3) SCC 624 a public
servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the
15
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410service record and apply for its correction bat till the record
is corrected, he cannot claim to continue in service on the
basis of the date of birth claimed by him. The Court said:
“……. .The date of compulsory Retirement under F. R.56 (a)
must in our Judgment be determined on the basis of the
service record and not on what the respondent claimed to
be his date of birth, unless the service record is first
corrected consistently with the appropriate procedure. A
public Servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in
the service record and may apply for correction of the
record. But until the record is corrected, he cannot claim
that he has been deprived of the guarantee under
Art.311(2) of the Constitution by being compulsorily retired
on attaining the age of superannuation on the footing of the
date of birth entered in the service record.”
The above position was elaborately stated by apex Court in
Union of India v. Harnam Singh [1993 (2) SCC 162]. In
Executive Engineer v. Rangadhar Mallick [(1993) Suppl. 1
SCC 763] apex Court held that no correction is to be made
when an application for correction of date of birth near
about the time of superannuation. In State of Tamil Nadu v.
T. V. Venugopalan [1994 Lab. I.C. 2498] it was held that
inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground
for rejecting prayer for correction of date of birth”.
(underline supplied)
15. The petitioner entered service on 20.06.2000. She
submitted an application for condoning the delay in filing an
16
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
application to correct the date of birth in the SSLC only in the
year 2025. It is in pursuance to Annexure A4 order passed by the
Government on 19.03.2025, Annexure A5 proceedings of the
Joint Commissioner of Government Examination was issued to
correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the school records and
the qualification certificate as 07.06.1974 at the place of
30.05.1973. It was thereafter the petitioner submitted an
application to correct her date of birth in the service book, which
resulted in Annexure A7 order dated 08.09.2025. Hence, as held
by the Tribunal, the application submitted by the petitioner to
correct her date of birth in the service records is one submitted
beyond the time fixed by the Government in the order dated
30.12.1991. Therefore, it can only be said as a belated one and
the same would be subject to the rider in Annexure A4 order
issued by the Government. The argument of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that in the judgments relied by the Tribunal,
the applicants therein approached the competent authority or
the Tribunal in a belated stage and whereas the petitioner
approached the authority concerned much before her retirement,
17
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
has no merits, in view of the time fixed in the Government Order
dated 30.12.1991 and the rider in Annexure A4 order.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submission made at the Bar in the light of the judgments
referred to supra, we find no ground to hold that the impugned
order of the Tribunal is perverse or illegal, which warrants
interference of this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
18
OP(KAT)No.446 of 2025 2026:KER:16410
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 446 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE NO.
1232740 DATED 8..2..2013 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR,
PALAKKAD
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE SERVICE
BOOK OF THE APPLICANT ALONG WITH TYPED COPY
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS KONGAD
GRAMA PANCHAYATH ISSUED ON 15.7.2022
Annexure A 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. [ RT ] 2098/2025/GEDN
DATED 19..3..2025
Annexure A 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. L.DIS
EX/B1/13305/2025/CGE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 21..5..2025
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF SSLC BOOK
WHICH CARRIES CORRECTED DATED OF BIRTH
Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 250/C2/2025/G.
EDN DATED 8..9..2025 ISSUED BY UNDER
SECRETARY, . GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
ALONG WITH TYPED COPY
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF OA [ EKM ] NO. 1478 OF 2025
DATED 25.9.2025
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN
OA EKM 1478/2025 DATED 7.10.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER [ P ] NO.
45/91/P&ARD DATED 30..12..1991