RUPSING @ CHANDRASHEKHAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BASED on a judgment dated 04.06.2005 passed in R.A. No. 177/2003 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Basavan Bagewadi, the petitioner had approached the Karnataka Secondary Education Board for correction of his date of birth in the SSLC marks card. The correction having been effected, the petitioner approached the respondents 1 and 2 to carry out necessary correction in his service register, he being employee of the 4th respondent. The claim was rejected by issuing endorsements dated 19.07.2007 and 10.12.2007. The same, when questioned in W.P. No. 709/2008, were upheld by rejecting the writ petition on 28.01.2008. W.A. No. 704/2008 fled by the petitioner was dismissed on 17.03.2009. Petitioner having submitted a representation dated 22.10.2013 seeking correction of date of birth in his service register and an endorsement dated 02.12.2013 vide Annexure -H having been issued, this writ petition was filed to quash Annexure -H and to direct the respondents to incorporate in the petitioner's service register, the date of birth in terms of the declaration made in the Judgment and Decree dated 04.06.2005 passed in R.A. No. 177/2003 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Basavan Bagewadi.

(2.) SRI Ko. Vijayakumar, learned advocate contended that the view taken by the 3rd respondent in the impugned endorsement is arbitrary and illegal, since the application for change of entry in the service register had been made on 28.09.1992 i.e., before expiry of three years from the date of petitioner's entry into service. Learned counsel contended that in the circumstances of the case, the order dated 28.01.2008 passed in W.P. No. 709/2008 as at Annexure -E and the judgment dated 17.03.2009 passed in W.A. No. 704/2008 as at Annexure -G have no bearing and the petitioner is entitled to the relief.

(3.) THIS is second round of litigation by the petitioner. W.P. No. 709/2008 was rejected on 28.01.2008. W.A. No. 704/2008 was found to be belated and finding no sufficient cause for condoning the delay, I.A. 2/2008 seeking condonation of delay was dismissed and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.