A division bench of Justice M Venugopal and Justice S Baskaran, while dismissing a review application from Jeyaratnakumar, seeking a change in his date of birth, said, “Such a plea for alteration at the eleventh hour should not be entertained because of the possible wide-ranging ramifications and repercussion to follow, which may result in compounding the problem in manifold ways.”
Challenging the orders of a division bench dated February 1, 2008, which refused to effect change in his date of birth, the petitioner had filed the present revision in 2017. He was appointed as the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Department of Prosecutions in 1995 based on his date of birth of June 1, 1960.
Facing superannuation, he moved the High Court to change his date of birth as February 9, 1961. As the single judge had refused, he approached a division bench, which in 2008 upheld the single judge’s rejection order.
Also, the bench on pointing out that the revision plea has come after nearly nine years, said, “The power of review is not to be confused with an appellate one .”