PARAMESHWARAPPA G R Vs. SOLICITOR AND EX OFFICIO DY SECY DEPT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND ENQUIRY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(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. 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.