Mrs.Maryamma Joseph,d/O.C.T.Varghese Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
finance act, 1994 - clause (3d) sections 65, 75, 76; airports authority of india act, 1994airports authority of india act, 1994 - section 3 - airports authority -- the aai entered into a licence agreement with the appellant by which the appellant was entrusted with the responsibility and the activity of collecting airport admission ticket charges on behalf of aai limited at karipur airport, calicut. "licence agreement on the satisfaction that the appellant was required to pay service tax on airport services rendered by it under the aforesaid provisions as `authorized person' of aai at karipur airport, calicut for the period from 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2005 a show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding service tax amounting to rs. 1,80,845/- and education cess amounting to rs...........of 2010dated this the 10th day of november, 20101. the petitioner applied for correction of her date of birth in the s.s.l.c. book and school records, as per exhibit p5 application. there was delay in making the application. as per exhibit p4 order dated 3.6.2000 passed by the first respondent, the delay was condoned. the commissioner for government examinations was directed to entertain the application and to dispose of the same on the merits, as per rules. 2. the date of birth of the petitioner as per the s.s.l.c. book and the school records is 19.11.1956. she wants the date of birth to be corrected as 2.4.1958. the date of birth entered in the register under the registration of births and deaths act is 2.4.1958. 3. the commissioner for government examinations rejected the.....

Judgment:
K.T.SANKARAN, J.

W.P.(C).No.32616 of 2010

Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010

1. The petitioner applied for correction of her date of birth in the S.S.L.C. Book and school records, as per Exhibit P5 application. There was delay in making the application. As per Exhibit P4 order dated 3.6.2000 passed by the first respondent, the delay was condoned. The Commissioner for Government examinations was directed to entertain the application and to dispose of the same on the merits, as per rules.

2. The date of birth of the petitioner as per the S.S.L.C. book and the school records is 19.11.1956. She wants the date of birth to be corrected as 2.4.1958. The date of birth entered in the Register under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act is 2.4.1958.

3. The Commissioner for Government examinations rejected the application as per Exhibit P6 order dated 4.6.2009 holding thus :

"The evidences produced to prove the claim of the petitioner are the documents read as papers 2 to 7. The said documents and the enquiry report read as paper 8 have been examined. The date of birth of Smt.Maryamma Joseph as per the birth certificate read as paper 5 is 2.4.1958. She was admitted to Std.I at St.Michael's HS Thathampally on 26.5.1962. If the date of birth is corrected, she would attain the age of 4 years one month and 24 days at the time of admission to Std.I. As per Rule 5 Chapter VI of KER, no child who has not completed five years of age as on 1st June of the year of admission shall not be admitted to any school."

4. The petitioner challenged that order before the first respondent. The first respondent rejected the request of the petitioner as per Exhibit P8 order dated 6.8.2009. The first respondent was under the erroneous impression that the application submitted by the petitioner was for correction of date of birth in the service records.

5. Exhibit P8 order passed by the first respondent is bad in law since the facts were not correctly comprehended. In so far as Exhibit P6 order passed by the Commissioner for Government examinations is concerned, it is against the law laid down in Chandrika vs. State of Kerala(2010 (1) KLT 223) and Kotnis K.B. vs. State of Kerala and others (2010 (4) KLT 447).

For the aforesaid reasons, Exhibits P6 and P8 orders are quashed. The Commissioner for Government examinations shall consider the application afresh in the light of the principles laid down in Chandrika A.K. vs. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLT 223) and Kotnis K.B. vs. State of Kerala and others (2010 (4) KLT 447) referred to above, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.