M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Government Advocate. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is totally and completely devoid of substance. The brief facts are that the respondent who is the original plaintiff, contended before the City Civil Court that when he happened to check his S. S. L. C. marks card, he found his date of birth has wrongly been entered thereon. According to him, the certificate mentions the date of birth as 748-1962 when in fact, the correct date of birth is 7-6-1963. The relief asked for is directed against the second respondent, namely, the Secretary, karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board as it is that authority which is required to carry out the correction in the certificate in question. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge has accepted the birth certificate issued by the statutorily designated authority as also the supportive evidence adduced by the plaintiff which conclusively indicates that his correct date of birth is in fact 7-6-1963 and that, consequently, the learned trial Judge held that the necessary correction is required to be carried out by the second defendant. An amount of Rs. 500/- was awarded as costs against the plaintiff. Obviously, due to this error, the authorities would be put to some degree of labour in correcting the relevant records. ( 4 ) THE defendants have filed an appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court. The learned Government Advocate has contended that the trial Court was in error in having relied on the material produced before him and that no such belated correction ought to have been permitted. He places reliance on the fact that this Court has in the recent past taken the view that a belated alteration in respect of the date of birth by an employer is not permissible and that an employee is bound down by his own earlier representations on the basis of which the date of birth is entered in the record. He places reliance on the fact that this Court has in the recent past taken the view that a belated alteration in respect of the date of birth by an employer is not permissible and that an employee is bound down by his own earlier representations on the basis of which the date of birth is entered in the record. Those decisions would have no application to the present case because, in those instances, the basic question was one of estoppel in so far as the employment was secured on the basis of certain representations and the employee seeks to take advantage of that ground at the fag end of his career, which the Courts have held as being not permissible principally because the employer acted on the basis of the wrong representation at the stage when the employment was secured. In the present instance, nothing of that sort has been demonstrated and it is a simple correction of an error on the basis of unimpeachable evidence. ( 5 ) TO my mind, there is absolutely no ground on which the decree of the trial Court can be assailed. In these circumstances, the appeal in question fails and is liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) BEFORE parting with this case, it is necessary to observe that the Courts in this country have been repeatedly deprecating the practice of mechanically filing appeals particularly in cases where no prejudice is caused to the State and more so, in cases where no ground whatsoever for appeal exists. The present case is a classic instance where the appeal has been thoughtlessly filed obviously at the instance of some negligent officers from the department. It is a waste of public time and energy and of judicial time. The appellants are quite oblivious of the numerous observations made by the Supreme Court and the High Courts with regard to frivolous litigations of this type and are continuing to indulge in such exercises. This Court is, therefore, left with no option except to dismiss the appeal with costs which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/ -. The costs in question are to be paid over to the Advocates' Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from today and the receipt thereof to be filed with the office. The office to ensure compliance. --- *** --- .