Karnataka High Court
N. Anjaneya Reddy vs M/S Karnataka Co-Operative Milk on 9 December, 2020
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.39478/2016 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
N. ANJANEYA REDDY
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 1093
12TH MAIN, BSK 1ST STAGE
RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK
SRINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560050.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NARAYANA BHAT M, ADV.)
AND:
1. M/S. KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS' MARKETING FEDERATION
LIMITED (KMF), KMF CENTRE
DR. MARIGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560029
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION)
M/S. KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS' MARKETING FEDERATION
LIMITED (KMF), KMF CENTRE
DR. MARIGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRASHANTH B.R. ADV. FOR
SRI. M R C RAVI, ADV.)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER; SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF REJECTION IN DISPUTE NO.375/2005-
06 DATED 09.02.2009 VIDE ANNEX-D1 AS THE SAME IS
ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 09.02.2009 passed in Dispute No.375/2005-06 (Annexure-D); to quash the order dated 09.12.2015 passed in Appeal No.317/2009 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and for a direction to the respondents to take the petitioner back to duty and also to continue the petitioner in service till he reaches the age of 60 years on the correct date of birth as 28.09.1959, based on the marks card issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (Annexure-A).
3
2. The petitioner states that he joined services of the respondent - Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers' Marketing Federation Limited (for short 'the KMF') on 22.04.1985. His date of birth was entered as 01.06.1956 in the service records based on the SSLC certificate. Based on the said date of birth the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2006.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 28.11.1959 and it was wrongly entered in the School records as 01.06.1956. Since his parents were illiterate, they could not report the exact date of birth to the School at the time admission of the petitioner to the school. It is stated that in the year 1986-87, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that his date of birth is wrongly entered in the school records. Thereafter it is stated that petitioner approached the Tahsildar and applied for 4 certificate under Births and Deaths Act. The Tahsildar issued endorsement stating that nobody was born in the Village on 01.06.1956. Then he made representation to the SSLC Board for correction of date of birth in the SSLC marks card, which was effected on verification of records and report of the revenue authorities. After getting the corrected SSLC certificate, the petitioner approached the respondent - KMF by making representation. The request of the petitioner was rejected by issuing endorsement dated 03.09.1999, against which it is stated that the petitioner filed OS.No.6241/2001. In the said suit the respondent- KMF contended that the suit would not be maintainable in view Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'). Thereafter the petitioner withdrew the suit and raised dispute under Section 70 of the Act in dispute No.375/2005-06. The said dispute was dismissed by order dated 09.02.2009 against which the petitioner filed appeal No.317/2009 5 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The said Appeal also came to be rejected by order 9.12.2015. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies as well as by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
4. Heard Sri M.Narayana Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Prashanth B.R. learned counsel for Sri.M.R.C. Ravi for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the orders passed by Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal are erroneous and committed an error in rejecting the dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to correction of the date of birth. Learned counsel would point out that the respondent - KMF has its own Regulation and Byelaws and the provisions of 6 Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Determination of Age Act') would not be applicable. The petitioner had made representation to the respondent - KMF immediately after correction of date of birth in the SSLC marks card.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that provisions of Determination of Age Act would be applicable to employees of the KMF, since matters in respect of which no regulation exists, the Board could adopt the government notification and orders. In the matter of recruitment and promotions the respondent - KMF is following the provisions of Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short 'the KCSR').
7. The petitioner's prayer for a direction to take back the petitioner to duty and to continue the petitioner in service till he reaches the age of 60 years taking the date of birth as 28.09.1959 would not survive for consideration as on this date. Since the date of birth 7 entered in his service records was 01.06.1956, the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2016. Even assuming that the petitioner's date of birth is 28.11.1959, he would have retired from service in 30th November 2018. Therefore, at this stage, petitioner cannot be put back to service or he would be entitled to salary, since he has not worked for the said period. In the said circumstances, it would be futile to go into the question, whether the Determination of Age Act would be applicable to the case of the petitioner or not.
8. It is settled law that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary one and the same would not be exercised in futility. Mere declaration as to the applicability or otherwise of the Determination of Age Act to the employees of KMF, without the possibility of a consequential relief with regard thereto to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the case would tantamount to a 8 futile academic exercise and this Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction would refrain from doing so. The point raised in this writ petition therefore, is purely academic in nature. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction neither issue futile writ nor deals with purely academic issues.
9. For the reasons, stated above the writ petition is disposed of as the prayer would not survive for consideration.
SD/-
JUDGE NG* CT:bms