L.Muhammed Aslam Vs.
State of Kerala Tr.Chief Sec.& Ors. [2009] INSC 917 (8 May 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3412 OF 2009 (Arising out
of SLP(C) No. 17932 of 2008) L. Muhammed Aslam ..........Appellant Versus State
of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary and Ors. .......Respondent
H.L. Dattu,J.
Leave granted.
1.
This
is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of High Court of Kerala
dated 27.05.2008 in Writ Appeal No.965 of 2008. By the impugned order, the
Division Bench of the High Court has affirmed the order passed by the High
Court in Writ Petition No.6999 of 2008 dated 02.04.2008, wherein and
whereunder, the Court, has set aside the order passed by the State Government
dated 16.01.2008.
2.
The
Petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Immigration Wing, Calicut International Airport. It is his assertion
that in his School records, his date of birth was wrongly entered and therefore
coming to know of the said mistake, he had requested the State Government to
correct his date of birth as 12.01.1953 in the School records instead of
12.06.1954 and his request is favorably considered by the State Government vide
its order dated 16.01.2008 and the same could not have been taken exception to
by the High Court and therefore requests this Court in this appeal for
appropriate orders and directions.
3.
Having
carefully perused the judgment and the order passed by the High Court, in our
considered view, the Court has understood the purport, object and purpose of
the Government order in the proper perspective and has correctly come to the
conclusion that the State Government while considering the claim of the
appellant could not have diluted its own order to assist the appellant who had
not complied with the conditions stipulated in the Government order.
4.
The
only question that would arise for our consideration in this appeal is whether
the High Court can sit in appeal over the decision of the State Government
correcting the date of birth of an officer of the State Government. In our
view, the judicial review of the Administrative action is now well settled by
plethora of the decisions of this Court and the references to those decisions
and the observations made therein would be unnecessary in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
5.
In
the result, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this
petition and, accordingly, it requires to be rejected.
6.
In
view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their
own costs.
.......................................J.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE]
.......................................J.
[ H.L. DATTU ]
New
Delhi,
May
08, 2009.
Back
