Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2085 (KAR)

S. Chidanandamurthy v. State of Karnataka

2020-10-20

R.DEVDAS

body2020
ORDER : R. Devdas, J. 1. The petitioner who is working as a Senior Geologist under the Commissioner, Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 28-2-2020 made in the S.S.L.C. marks card which was issued on 28-2-2020 at Annexure-C and an endorsement dated 10-3-2020 issued by the Under Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed O.S. No. 3499/2010 before the City Civil Court at Bangalore, seeking a declaration that his date of birth is 28-8-1962 and the date of birth as shown in the S.S.L.C. marks card i.e., 10-2-1960 is required to be corrected. By a judgment and decree dated 1-3-2011, the suit was dismissed. The petitioner approached this Court in RFA No. 929/2011. This Court by a judgment and decree dated 16-1-2020 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of City Civil Court and directed the correction to be made in the S.S.L.C. marks card. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that while the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board issued the corrected marks card on 28-2-2020, a note has been put up at the foot of the marks card stating that the correction of Date of Birth in the marks card cannot be considered for service benefits in terms of the order dated 16-1-2020 passed in RFA No. 929/2011. Learned Counsel submits that this note is in excess of what was required to be done by the Board and uncalled for. Nevertheless an application was made by the petitioner to the Government seeking correction of the date of birth in the Service Register. It is submitted that an endorsement dated 10-3-2020 has been issued by the Government which takes into account the note put up in the corrected SSLC marks card and it is also stated that the application made by the petitioner is beyond the period of three years as contemplated in Section 5(2) of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). Learned Counsel submits that sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, contemplates an enquiry and without conducting an enquiry the authorities could not have issued the endorsement or rejected the application made by the petitioner. 4. Learned AGA submits that no fault could be found in the impugned endorsement issued by the State Government. Learned Counsel submits that sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, contemplates an enquiry and without conducting an enquiry the authorities could not have issued the endorsement or rejected the application made by the petitioner. 4. Learned AGA submits that no fault could be found in the impugned endorsement issued by the State Government. It is submitted that while this Court allowed the Regular First Appeal, it was observed that the Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner herein may seek alteration of the Date of Birth in the Service Register and the declaration sought in the suit may be a camouflage for the same. However, it was observed by this Court that 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. 5. Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that while considering the application made by the petitioner, the authorities were required to comply with the provisions of Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the Act. Since sub-section (1) of Section 5 contemplates an inquiry, opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to the petitioner. Consequently, there was no need for the authorities to fall back on the note put up in the corrected marks card. The observations made by this Court in the Regular First Appeal was sufficient and enough material was available for the authorities to pass orders in accordance with law but after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 10-3-2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents 3 and 4 are required to consider the application made by the petitioner seeking correction of date of birth in the Service Register in accordance with the provisions of the Act, by holding an inquiry and thereafter proceed to pass an order in accordance with law. The entire exercise is required to be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.