ULAVAYYA SHIDDAYYA PUJERI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is filed against the order dtd. 17/10/2022 passed in W.P.No.19616/2022 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant herein to set aside or quash the endorsement (Annexure-A) dtd. 11/2/2013 bearing No.KasheEe/260/Ja.De.Thee/Seeve-2/2012-23 is dismissed.

(2.) The above writ petition is filed by the appellant/petitioner on the ground that he is working as a Associate Professor in S.B. Arts and K.C.P. Science College, an aided institution. That his date of birth at the time of entering into service was recorded as 1/1/1963 instead of 22/9/1964. That he had filed a suit in O.S.No.267/2003 seeking direction for correction of his school records which was decreed. An appeal filed against the said decree by the State authorities was dismissed. That his date of birth in school records has been changed from 1/1/1963 to 22/9/1964. That he had filed writ petition in W.P.No.6440/2008 which was disposed on 29/2/2012 directing the authorities to afford him an opportunity of personal hearing and to pass appropriate orders on his request for correction of his date of birth based on the aforesaid judgment and decree. That an endorsement at Annexure-A dtd. 11/2/2013 was issued by the authorities stating that appellant/petitioner had not made any application under Sec. 5 of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 seeking correction of date of birth within three years as provided under the Act. Aggrieved by the said endorsement dtd. 11/2/2013, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records and taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Rural infrastructure Development Limited vs. T.P.Nataraja and other reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 767 and also in the case of Home Department vs. R.Kirubakaran reported in [1991] Supp. (1) SCC 155 and taking into consideration of the fact that the endorsement rejecting the claim of the petitioner for correction of date of birth was issued on 11/2/2013 and the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 24/9/2022 that is more than 9 years after issuance of endorsement, held that the petitioner was not entitled the relief sought for. The learned Single Judge has also held that the correction of the date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right that too on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career. Accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.