A. SOMASHEKAR, S/O. LATE ANNADAWAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001, THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, C/O. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) KARNATAKA I.R.L.A. DEPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 13.06,2005 rejecting his application fifed in Application No. 696/ 2003. We heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE following facts are not in dispute in that writ petition: The petitioner was appointed as Inspector of Factories through KPSC on 2.1.1964. When the order of appointment was issued considering his date of birth mentioned in the SSLC marks card as 22.5.1955, the same came to be entered in the service records. Then all of a sudden nine years after his appointment and reporting for duty he Sled an application to the Law Secretary stating that in his school records his date of birth has been wrongly mentioned as 22.5.1355, even though his actual date of birth is 26.7.1957. According to him, he came to know his correct date of birth by looking into the Birth Register maintained by the Corporation City of Bangalore, which entry was made based on the report sent by the Vanivilas Hospital, Bangalore. Therefore he requested the Law Secretary to alter his date of birth as 26.7.1967 in the Service Register for all purposes. Application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Government by its order dated 4.9.1996 stating that his date of birth is entered in the Service Register on 2,1 -1984 and as the application has not been submitted by the petitioner for correcting the date of birth within a period of three years. Accordingly it was rejected as bared by time. Challenging the legality and correctness of the rejection of his application to correct his date of birth, the petitioner approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal toy filing an application in Application No. 696/2003, which has been rejected by the Tribunal on perusal of the records. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.

(3.) HAVING heard, the learned counsel for the parties, what is to be considered in that writ petition is; Whether the Government or the Tribunal were justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner as bared by time?