M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner, a Circle Inspector of Police has prayed for quashing the order of the State Government by which his application under Section 5 of the Karnataka State servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') was dismissed on the ground of limitation. ( 2 ) THE Act came into force on 18-6- 1974. Under S. 5 of the Act, a Government servant could make an application before the State Government for alteration of the entry relating to his date of birth, as made in his service register, if it is found to be a mistake and if the correct date of birth were to be to his advantage. But sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 of the Act provides that no alteration of date of birth entered in the service register to the advantage of a Civil Servant can be made unless he had made an application within the period! prescribed in that provision. In the present case, as the petitioner had entered into service long prior to the commencement of the Act, he could make an application on or before 18-6-1975. But he made the application on 8-1-1976. The case was referred for inquiry to the officer appointed by the state Government under sub-sec. (3) of S. 5 of the Act. ( 3 ) THE petitioner also filed an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condoning the delay in the presentation of the petition. The inquiring authority considered in the first instance as to whether S. 5 of the limitation Act was at all applicable he was of the view that the Act being a special one and the application being to the Government and not to a court, the provisions of S. 5 of the limitation Act were not applicable however, he also proceeded to consider, whether there was sufficient ground to condone the delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act in respect of tile application made by the petitioner under S. 5 of the Act. After considering the evidence on record, the inquiring authority was of the view that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. After considering the evidence on record, the inquiring authority was of the view that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. He held that the plea put forward by the petitioner that he wanted to make a thorough investigation about his correct date of birth and therefore he was compelled to make the application after some delay, was not convincing. In the course of the order he also pointed out that the petitioner had obtained his original horoscope on or about 5-6-1975 itself and, therefore, he had no justification for making an application after the expiry of the period of limination. ( 4 ) AS far as the correctness of the view taken by the respondent as to whether S. 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable or not, it is not necessary for me to express any opinion on the said question as in the present case even on the basis that S. 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked the respondent has said that no sufficient cause was made out by the petitioner, for condonation of delay in presenting the application under S. 5 of the Act. That finding has been reached on the basis of the material on record and there is no ground to interfere with the said order. ( 5 ) SRI G. B. Raikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the following additional contentions: (I) As the limitation for making an application under S. 5 (2) of the Act had not at all commenced as the State government had not accepted and communicated the entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner in the service register, the rejection of the application was illegal. (II) In any event, under sub-sec. (1) of S. 5 of the Act, the State Government could effect alteration in the entry relating to date of birth and no limitation was fixed under the said sub-section. ( 6 ) SRI S. V. Narasimhan, learned high Court Government Header, submitted that the above contentions were not at all raised before the Government and, therefore, cannot be permitted to be raised in the writ petition. He also pointed out that if that was the stand of the petitioner, he would not have made an application for condonation of delay before the Government and, therefore, the ground was also liable to be rejected, as being an afterthought. He also pointed out that if that was the stand of the petitioner, he would not have made an application for condonation of delay before the Government and, therefore, the ground was also liable to be rejected, as being an afterthought. ( 7 ) AS the question is a pure question of law, I consider expedient to permit the learned counsel for the petitioner to raise the contentions and to proceed to consider the same on merits. ( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the first contention it is necessary to set out the scheme of the Act. Sub-sees: (1) and (2) of S. 3 provide for the determination of the age and date of birth of a state servant on entering into service sub-sec. (1) requires the State servant to furnish the documents mentioned in that sub-section in support of his age and date of birth. Sub-sec. (2) requires the appointing authority to determine the age and date of birth of the concerned State servant on the basis of the material produced under sub-sec. (1) and requires the age and date of birth so determined shall be accepted and recorded in the service register or other book or any other record of service of the concerned Stale servant. Obviously the said provisioin applies only to Government servants entering service on or after the date of the commencement of the Act or to such of the servants who entered service prior to the commencement of the act, but whose date of birth had not yet been accepted and recorded in the service register. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 applies to State servants whose age and date of birth have been accepted and recorded in the service register or any other record of service before the date of commencement of the Act. The said provision reads. "3, Determination of age on entry into State service: (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the age and date of birth of a State servant accepted and recorded in his service register or book or any other record of service before the date of commencement of this Act in accordance with the rules then in force shall be deemed to be the age and date of birth of such State servant accepted and recorded in the service register or book or any other record of service under sub-sec. (2 ). (2 ). " ( 9 ) THE case of the petitioner is governed by sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of th act. The very fact that he had made an application for alteration of his date of birth entered in the service register before the Government clearly indicates that the date of birth had been accepted and recorded in the service register prior to the commencement of the Act. Sub-sec. (3) provides that the age and date of birth of a state servant recorded in his service register prior to the commencement of the Act shall be deemed to be his date of birth accepted and recorded under sub-sees. (1) and (2) of S. 3 of the Act. Therefore the date of birth of the petitioner which was entered in the service register prior to the commencement of the Act, is, by virtue of sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of the Act deemed to be his date of birth accepted and recorded in his service register under the Act. ( 10 ) SUB-SEC. (4) of S. 3 of the Act provides that the date of birth accepted or deemed to have been accepted) shall be applicable for all purposes relating to conditions of ser vice including superannuation and retirement of the state servant concerned. Therefore the age of superannuation of the petitioner had to be determined on the basis of the entry relating to his date of birth in the service register made prior to the commencement of the Act. ( 11 ) SECTION 4 prohibits alteration of date of birth once accepted and recorded or deemed to have been accepted or recorded except in the manner provided under S. 5 of the Act. ( 12 ) SUB-SEES (1) and (2) of S. 5, which are relevant, read:"5. ( 11 ) SECTION 4 prohibits alteration of date of birth once accepted and recorded or deemed to have been accepted or recorded except in the manner provided under S. 5 of the Act. ( 12 ) SUB-SEES (1) and (2) of S. 5, which are relevant, read:"5. Alteration of age or date of birth of State servants:- (1) Subject to sub-section (2), the State Government may, at any time, after an inquiry alter the age and date of birth of a State servant as recorded or deemed to have been recorded in his service register or book or any other record of service: provided that no such alteration shall be made if the age and date of birth of a State servant has been accepted and recorded or deemed to have been accepted and recorded in the service register or book or any other record of service in pursuance of a decree of a civil court obtained by the State servant against the state Government: provided further that no such alteration shall be made without giving the State servant concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) No such alteration to the advantage ot a State Servant shall be made unless he has made an application for the purpose within three years from the date on which his age and date of birth is accepted and recorded in the service register or book or any other record of service or within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later. "sub-sec. (1) empowers the State Government to alter, after an inquiry, the date of birth of a State servant as recorded or deemed to have been recorded in his service register. Sub-section (2) provides that no alteration to the advantage of a State servant shall be made unless he makes an application for the purpose within three years from the date on which his date of birth and age was accepted and recorded in the service register or within one year from the date of commencement of the Act, whichever is later. ( 13 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the wording of sub-sec. ( 13 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the wording of sub-sec. (2) of s. 5 the period of limitation for making an application under that sub-section commences only from the date on which the date of birth was accepted, recorded and communicated to the State servant concerned after the commencement of the Act, and as no such acceptance and recording of date of birth of the petitioner had been made after the commencement of the Act, the starting point of limitation itself had not come into existence and, therefore, the application of the petitioner could not have been regarded as barred by limitation. In my opinion, the contention is fallacious. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 fixes the period of limitation for filing an application under the said provision generally at three years from the date of acceptance and recording of the date of birth in the service register of the state servant concerned. It however, gives an extended period of limitation of one year from the date of commencement of the Act for the benefit of such of the civil servants whose date of birth had been accepted and recorded more than two years prior to the commencement of the Act. As far as the case of such persons, the petitioner is one of them, is concerned, whose date of birth had been entered in the service register more than two years prior to the commencement of the Act, they could make an application under sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 within one year from the date of commencement of the Act. There is no question of fresh acceptance and recording of the date of birth in respect of State servants whose date of birth had been entered in the service register prior to the commencement of the Act. As pointed out earlier, under sub-sec (3) of S. 3 the date of birth of a State servant accepted and recorded in the service register prior to the commencement of the Act is deemed to be the date of birth accepted and recorded under sub-sees. (1) and (2) of S. 3 of the Act. As pointed out earlier, under sub-sec (3) of S. 3 the date of birth of a State servant accepted and recorded in the service register prior to the commencement of the Act is deemed to be the date of birth accepted and recorded under sub-sees. (1) and (2) of S. 3 of the Act. Therefore in the case of persons like the petitioner, it is for their benefit an extended period of limitation of one year from the date of commencement of the act is provided for as the period of three years from the date of acceptance would have expired prior to the commencement of the Act itself, as otherwise they would be left without a remedy. Therefore, there is no substance in the first contention that the period of limitation had not at all commenced in the case of the petitioner. ( 14 ) THE second contention is equally devoid of any merit. Sub-sec. (1) of s. 5 does not deal with cases of alteration of date of birth of State servants at the instance of the concerned State government. Further, the said subsection does not confer power on the state Government to alter an entry relating to date of birth to the advantage of a State servant. The opening words of sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 namely, no such alteration to the advantage of a State servant shall be made unless he has made an application, clearly indicate that power under sub-section (1) is not at all available to the State government to alter an entry relating to date of birth of a State servant to his advantage. The power conferred under sub-sec. (1) of S. 5 is that even after the acceptance and recording of age and the date of birth of a State servant either before or after the commencement of the Act, if it comes to the notice of the Government that any state servant has given incorrect date of birth to his advantage and the same had been accepted and recorded in the service register, the State Government cam order an inquiry into that matter and pass an order altering the age and date of birth as recorded or deemed to have been recorded in his service register. Such an inquiry, in view of the proviso to sub-sec. Such an inquiry, in view of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 5 has to be held after giving to the State servant concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The only restriction on the exercise of power of the state Government under S. 5 (1) is that if an earlier entry. relating to date of birth of a civil servant had been made pursuant to an order of the civil court obtained by the concerned State servant against the Government, such an entry cannot be altered. Therefore sub-sec. (1) of S. 5 of the Act has no relevance at all to an application made by a State servant for altering an entry relating to date of birth to his advantage. A similar contention had also been raised in Mallang Sab v. State of karnataka (1 ). Malimath, J. rejected the said contention. I am in respectful agreement with the said view. ( 15 ) IN the result, I make the following order: (I) Rule discharged. (ii) Petition dismissed. (iii) No costs. --- *** --- .