Karnataka High Court
Mr Ulavayya Shiddayya Pujeri vs State Of Karnataka on 17 October, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.19616/2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. ULAVAYYA SHIDDAYYA PUJERI
S/O SHIDDAYYA PUJERI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
S B ARTS AND KCP SCIENCE COLLEGE
VIJAYAPURA-586103
R/A NO.32, SHREYA HOSPITAL BUILDING
BHAVASARNAGAR, JAIL ROAD
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMANANDA A D, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE
EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA
PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
EDUCATION
REGIONAL OFFICE
F233 + V5P, UB HILLS
2
MALMADDI
DHARWAD-580001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL
S B ARTS AND KCP SCIENCE COLLEGE
VIJAYAPUR-586103.
5. THE KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION
EXAMINATION BOARD
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
6TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.V. RAMESH JOIS, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING
ASIDE OR QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATE 11.02.2013
BEARING NO.KASHEEE/260/JADETHEE/ SEEVE-2/2012.13
VIDE ANNEXURE-A TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THIS WRIT
PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement (Annexure-A) bearing No.KasheEe/260/Ja.De.Thee/Seeve-2/2012-13 dated 11.02.2013 rejecting the request of the petitioner for correction of date of birth.
3
2. Heard Sri A.D. Ramananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Associate Professor in S.B. Arts and K.C.P. Science College, an aided Institution. It is submitted that date of birth of the petitioner at the time of entering into service was recorded as 01.01.1963 instead of 22.09.1964. The petitioner filed O.S.No.267/2003 and the said suit was allowed directing the defendants to make necessary correction in his School records with regard to date of birth as 22.09.1964. The same was taken up in appeal by the State Authorities unsuccessfully. It is submitted that the said judgment and decree has become final and the date of birth in his S.S.L.C. marks card and other records have been changed from 01.01.1963 to 22.09.1964. It is submitted that the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.6440/2008, which was disposed of on 29.02.2012 directing the Commissioner to afford personal hearing and to pass fresh order in 4 accordance with law, after quashing the endorsement issued negating the petitioner's request for correction of date of birth based on the judgment and decree. Thereafter the present endorsement Annexure-A dated 11.02.2013 was issued stating that the petitioner has not made any application under Section 5 of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act') for correction of date of birth within three years as provided under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents are coming up with the said reason for the first time and they have not raised such an objection at the time of rejection under endorsement dated 07.12.2006 (Annexure-G), which was the subject matter before this Court in W.P.No.6440/2008. Further learned counsel would submit that the earlier rejection by the authorities was set aside by this Court with a direction to the respondents to hear the petitioner and pass fresh orders. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the judgment and decree passed in 5 O.S.No.267/2003 would be binding on the respondent- authorities and they are bound to correct the date of birth from 01.01.1963 to 22.09.1964. It is further contended that the authorities have corrected his S.S.L.C. Marks card and based on the same, the Commissioner erred in correcting the date of birth in service records.
4. Further the learned counsel would submit that the decision referred to by the respondents in the endorsement i.e., C.A.No.591/2006 would have no application to the facts of the present case, since the petitioner was before this Court earlier and as well as before the Civil Court seeking correction of date of birth.
5. The petitioner joined the services of the S.B. Arts and K.C.P. Science College an aided Institution and his service was regularized on 29.01.1998. At the time of his regularization of his service, the date of birth of the petitioner was entered as 01.01.1963. The petitioner 6 had approached the Civil Court in O.S.No.267/2003 seeking correction of date of birth. It is true that by judgment and decree dated 03.11.2003 the Civil Court directed for necessary correction in his school records by deleting his date of birth 01.01.1963 and in its place to insert 22.09.1964 as date of birth of the petitioner. The Act requires making of an application within three years from the date of entering into service seeking correction or alternation of date of birth. Section 4 bars alternation of age except under the Act. It would make clear, notwithstanding anything contained in any law or any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, no alteration of the age or date of birth of a State servant as accepted and recorded or deemed to have been accepted and recorded in his service register be made except under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, the judgment and decree relied upon by the petitioner would have no binding effect on the authorities. Moreover, the petitioner has not made any application 7 to the authorities as required under Section 5 of the Act within three years or subsequently.
6. The endorsement (Annexure-A) was issued on 11.02.2013 and the petitioner is before this Court by filing writ petition on 24.09.2022 at the fag end of his service before three months to retire, such a belated claim and approaching the Court, at the time of retirement, would not be maintainable and in catena of decisions the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that such writ petitions should not be entertained by the Courts. There is delay of more than 9 years in approaching this Court challenging the impugned endorsement (Annexure-A) dated 11.02.2013. On the ground of delay and laches also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited V/s. T.P.Nataraja and Others [2021 SCC OnLine SC 767] was examining the dispute with respect to change of 8 date of birth in the service records arising from the Act and at paragraphs 22 and 23, it is observed as follows:
"22. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under:
(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.
23. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, the application of the respondent for change of date of birth was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also and therefore as such respondent employee was not entitled to the decree of declaration and therefore the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and not tenable at law." 9
8. In the case of Home Deptt, V/s. R.Kirubakaran [1991 Supp (1) SCC 155], in a similar fact situation at paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever..."
9. In the instant case, endorsement rejecting the claim of petitioner for correction of date of birth was issued on 11.02.2013. the petitioner is before this Court by filing writ petition on 24.09.2022, more than 9 years after the impugned endorsement. As held by the Hon'ble 10 Apex Court, if an employee approaches the Court on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the Court has to be cautious and careful while considering such prayer, taking note of the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in service records at the time of his entry into service. Moreover, correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
For the reasons recorded above, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG* CT:bms