ORDER : The plaintiff in O.S.No.3499/2010 is the appellant. By judgment dated 01.03.2011, the trial court dismissed the said suit and hence this appeal. The brief facts are as follows: 2. It is the case of the appellant that he was born on 28.08.1962 at Manavarthapet Maternity Home, Bangalore city. The Corporation also issued birth certificate mentioning the date of birth as 28.08.1962. He completed his high school education at Rajajinagar Parents Association School (RPAS), Rajajinagar, Bangalore and in the school records, the date of birth was registered as 28.08.1962. He passed the SSLC examination in the year 1978 and thereafter completed the college education. He secured masters degree in Geology and did Ph.D also. He was employed temporarily in the Department of Mines and Geology and his service was regularized on 26.09.2007. At the time of opening the service book after regularization of his service, the plaintiff was asked to furnish a document in relation to his date of birth. At that time the plaintiff noticed that in his SSLC marks card, the date of birth was wrongly entered as 10.02.1960. Noticing this mistake he approached his departmental authorities to rectify the same. At that time he produced the original documents to show that his correct date of birth was 28.08.1962. The authorities refused to rectify the mistake. Thereafter the plaintiff got issued a notice to the respondents on 14.12.2009 calling upon them to rectify the mistake in the marks card. They did not take any action. Hence he filed a suit seeking direction to respondents 2 and 3 for correcting his date of birth in the SSLC marks card. 3. The respondents being the defendants in the suit did not contest. The appellant himself tendered evidence as PW1 and produced 10 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.10. He was not cross examined by the respondents. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit by recording the reasons that after completion of SSLC, the appellant pursued higher education. He obtained masters degree and obtained Ph.D. also. So when he obtained admission to the colleges wherever he studied, he himself should have declared his date of birth as 10.02.1960. This being the fact, if the plaintiff has stated that he came to know in the year 2008 or 2009 about the mistake or a wrong entry in the SSLC marks card, it cannot be believed. So when he obtained admission to the colleges wherever he studied, he himself should have declared his date of birth as 10.02.1960. This being the fact, if the plaintiff has stated that he came to know in the year 2008 or 2009 about the mistake or a wrong entry in the SSLC marks card, it cannot be believed. He joined service in the year 1988 and for this reason he is estopped from bringing the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in the civil court as Section 6 of The Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (‘Act’ for short) is a bar for the suit. The plaintiff is a government servant; if any alteration has to be made with regard to date of birth, he must take action only under the provisions of the said Act and he cannot file a suit in the civil court. It is also held by the trial court that the plaintiff has not sought relief of declaration, he just wants a direction to the defendants for effecting rectification in the marks card. The plaint is not properly drafted. He should have moved the competent authority within three years from the date of entering into service. Suit is filed almost 22 years after joining the service. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief that he has claimed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the findings of the trial court argued that the trial court did not notice the fact that the suit was not filed against the department in which he has been employed. The suit is against the Deputy Director of Public Instructions and the Secretary of Karnataka State Secondary Education Board for rectification of an error in the SSLC marks card with regard to date of birth of the appellant. Section 6 of the Act can be said to be a bar if the appellant had filed a suit against the Department of Mines and Geology, where the appellant is employed. The suit is not against his department. The correct date of birth of the appellant is 28.08.1962. But in the SSLC marks card, the date of birth is mentioned as 10.02.1960. Ex.P.1 and 2 are the primary documents that the plaintiff had produced before the trial court in proof of his correct date of birth. The trial court has not considered these two documents at all. The correct date of birth of the appellant is 28.08.1962. But in the SSLC marks card, the date of birth is mentioned as 10.02.1960. Ex.P.1 and 2 are the primary documents that the plaintiff had produced before the trial court in proof of his correct date of birth. The trial court has not considered these two documents at all. But it has just proceeded on the ground of maintainability of the suit and improper drafting of the plaint. The appellant does not claim rectification of the marks card in relation to his service conditions. It is for the concerned authority of the department to take appropriate action for rectifying the date of birth according to Section 5 of the Act. The relief that the plaintiff has claimed in the suit does not pertain to his service conditions and Section 6 of the Act is not a bar. It is his argument that in the light of these facts and circumstances, the suit is very much maintainable and that the respondents can be directed to effect correction in the marks card. In support of his argument he placed reliance on the judgments of this court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. T.Srinivas – [ILR 1987 Kar 1843 (DB)], State of Karnataka and another Vs. Shivanand Fakirappa Naik – (AIR 2003 Karnataka 185), Seetarama Shetty Vs. M/s. Visweswarayya Iron & Steel Ltd (ILR 1992 Kar. 3392), Govinda Setty T., Vs. Government of Karnataka Laws (Karnataka) 1978 54. He argued for allowing the appeal. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the trial court has come to right conclusion that the suit is not maintainable. The suit was barred by time. The remedy available to the appellant was to approach his Department under Section 5 of the Act. If the application was made for rectification after expiry of the prescribed time, the said application cannot be considered. Therefore the findings given by the trial court are justifiable. In support of her argument she relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Basavaraju Vs. State of Karnataka and others – [1999(6) Kar. L.J.445]. 6. After hearing the arguments, the question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents can be directed to rectify the error in the SSLC marks card, if the correction is not sought in relation to service conditions of the appellant? State of Karnataka and others – [1999(6) Kar. L.J.445]. 6. After hearing the arguments, the question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents can be directed to rectify the error in the SSLC marks card, if the correction is not sought in relation to service conditions of the appellant? According to the appellant his correct date of birth 28.08.1962 and in the SSLC marks card, the date of birth is mentioned as 10.02.1960. Ex.P.1 is the birth certificate. According to it, the date of birth is 28.08.1962. Ex.P.2 is the cumulative record of the appellant. In this cumulative record, the date of birth is mentioned as 28.08.1962. Ex.P.3 is the SSLC marks card of the appellant, in which the date of birth is mentioned as 10.02.1960. It is true that there is lapse on the part of the appellant in not seeking rectification well within time after issuance of the SSLC marks card as per Ex.P.3. He completed his college education and obtained doctorate degree also. He was temporarily employed in the Department of Mines and Geology and thereafter his service came to be regularized as evidenced by Ex.P.7. If the plaintiff says that he came to know about the error in the SSLC marks card only when his service register was opened, it is difficult to accept this reason. In the plaint he has stated that he approached the officers of his department for alteration of date of birth and the concerned officer declined to effect alteration. But in the suit the department is not made a party. The 1st defendant is the State of Karnataka represented by Secretary, Department of Education. The 2nd defendant is the Deputy Director of Public Instructions and the 3rd defendant is the Secretary of Karnataka State Secondary Examination Board. It is the 3rd defendant who is the authority to issue the SSLC marks card. The arguments advanced by the appellant’s counsel is that since the suit was not against the department where the appellant has been employed, suit is very much maintainable and Sections 5 and 6 of the Act are not applicable. It was his clear submission that rectification of the date of birth has not been sought in relation to the service conditions of the plaintiff and therefore the maintainability issue does not arise. 7. It was his clear submission that rectification of the date of birth has not been sought in relation to the service conditions of the plaintiff and therefore the maintainability issue does not arise. 7. If the entire findings of the trial court are seen, it appears that the trial court has proceeded on the ground of maintainability of the suit without considering the effect of Ex.P.1 and 2, and against whom the relief is claimed. The trial court has also dismissed the suit taking note of the fact that the appellant failed to claim the relief of declaration. In this regard it is to be stated that if the relief for declaration was not sought, the courts have power to mould the relief in the background of material facts pleaded and therefore the suit could not have been dismissed on this ground. 8. Whether the suit of this nature is maintainable or not was a matter for discussion before the division bench of this court in the case of T. Srinivas (supra). After referring to many authorities, it was held as below. “18. ………This is an indication of the fact that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to make a declaration regarding the date of birth or alteration of age of the Government servant in matters not relating to his conditions of service. That being so, either on principle or on authority; the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be questioned in the case of nongovernmental employees or persons. Even in the case of Government servants, a suit for declaration of age or date of birth could be maintained if the relief claimed does not relate to his conditions of service”. (underlining by me) 9. In another decision of this court in the case of State of Karnataka and another Vs. Shivanand Fakirappa Naik – (supra), it has been held as below: “9. In so far as the argument of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 is concerned, I must say that the said Act Is not available to the appellant. The Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 is an Act to provide for the determination of the age of State Servants. Section 3 provides for determination of age on entry into State Services. Section 4 provides for bar of alteration of age except under the Act. The Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 is an Act to provide for the determination of the age of State Servants. Section 3 provides for determination of age on entry into State Services. Section 4 provides for bar of alteration of age except under the Act. Section 5 provides for alteration of age or date of birth. In the case on hand, the material facts would reveal that what the plaintiff wants is a declaration with regard to the date of birth in the light of non mentioning of the same in the S.S.C. Certificate. In fact, the various documents filed in the Court below would show that he was born on 10-9-1945 as mentioned earlier. He only wanted an error to be corrected in the S.S.C. certificate. Correction of S.S.C. Certificate stands on different footing than the correct date of birth in the Government record. In fact, in the Government records, the petitioner's date of birth is shown as 10-9-1945. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is seeking alteration of date of birth in the service records maintained by the State authority. In the given set of circumstances, the determination of age Act is not applicable in the light of the acceptance of the age as 10-9-1945 by Govt. Therefore, this argument is devoid of merits”. (underlining by me) 10. If the principles laid down in the above judgments are seen, it can be very well said that the suit is maintainable. Since it was the clear submission of the appellant’s counsel that the appellant does not claim any service benefits in case the date of birth is rectified in the SSLC marks card, there is no bar for ordering the rectification to this extent. 11. In the case of Basavaraju Vs. State of Karnataka, the judgment cited by the High Court Government Pleader, the facts are different. In that case, the petitioner who was appointed as a daily wager, sought alteration of his date of birth under the provisions of Act. That application was made beyond three years. The contention of the petitioner was that at the inception he was appointed as a daily wager and that his service was regularized after completion of ten years. He made an application for alteration of date of birth on 04.01.1996 after regularization and therefore he contended that his application was within time. That application was made beyond three years. The contention of the petitioner was that at the inception he was appointed as a daily wager and that his service was regularized after completion of ten years. He made an application for alteration of date of birth on 04.01.1996 after regularization and therefore he contended that his application was within time. But this court while holding that the application was beyond time also held that once the service book was opened after entering into service either as a daily wager or as a permanent employee, application must be made within the prescribed time. The Act does not distinguish between temporary employment and permanent employment. Therefore this judgment is not applicable. 12. In this case the appellant has not sought any relief against the Department within the ambit of Section 5 of the Act. The suit is only for rectification of error in the marks card. I am conscious of the fact that the suit might be camouflaged, in the sense that he may seek alteration of date of birth in his service record once the date of birth in the SSLC marks card is corrected. In such an event, it is for the department to take a decision according to law subject to riders found in Section 5 of the Act. Date of birth is an event in one’s life and this may give rise to various consequences affecting legal character at times. Birth of a person is a fact, and any error in mentioning of date of birth in the school records may be rectified at any time if the rectification has nothing to do with service conditions of an employee. If alteration is sought in connection with service condition, it must be strictly in accordance with law. For the limited purpose of effecting rectification in the SSLC marks card, the suit is very much maintainable and based on Ex.P.1 and 2 the date of birth can be corrected. Looked in this view the trial court has committed an error and therefore the judgment needs to be interfered with. Accordingly the following order. Appeal is allowed. The correct date of birth of the appellant is declared as 28.08.1962. The respondents are hereby directed to effect the correction in the SSLC marks card of the appellant. There is no order as to cost.