GOVINDA SETTY T Vs. GOVT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner T.Govinda Setty, a Govt Civil Servant, has filed this writ petition to quash the order d/30-6-77 (copy Ext.C) passed by the 1st respondent - the State Govt rejecting his claim to alter his date of birth as 15-2-1923 made in his application filed under Sec.5 of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (shortly called the 'Act') and to issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent to accept his date of birth as 15-2-1923 as recommended by the 2nd respondent in his report (copy Ext.B) dated 14-10-1976.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: The petitioner'..? father late Thammiah alias Thimma Setty was an illiterate person. He got the petitioner admitted to School on 20-9-1927. While Admitting the petitioner, he gave the age of the petitioner approximately as 5 years. Accordingly, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the school register as 20-9-1922 on the ba,sis of the approximate age of the petitioner furnished by his father at the time of his admission to the school. The mistake in the date of birth of the petitioner continued in the records including in his service register. He dame to know about the mistake only in the year 1975 when he accidentally got his horoscope (Kundali) in which his correct date of birth is mentioned as 15-2-1923. He filed an application under Sec.5 of the Act for the correction of the date of birth as 15-2-1923 instead of the wrong date of birth entered in the school register as 20-9-1922. The 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent for holding the enquiry on the application filed by the petitioner. After holding the enquiry, the 2nd respondent submitted his report Ext.B to the 1st respondent with a recommendation to accept the date of birth of the petitioner as 15-2-1923. The 1st respondent did not agree with the findings! of the 2nd respondent and rejected the application of the petitioner as per its order under Ext. C. It is the correctness and legality of this order of the 1st respondent that is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) The contentions of Shi A.Ananda Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the petiioner were three-fold. His first contention was that the 2nd respondent who was appointed as the officer for the purpose of making enquiry on the application filed by the petitioner was deemed to be a civil Court, that the procedure followed in the conduct of the enquiry was a Judicial proceeding and as such the 1st respondent was bound by the findings recorded by the 2nd respondent. Secondly it was contended that the 1st respondent passed the impugned order Ext.C without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and as such it offends the rules of natural justice. Thirdly it was contended that the findings of the 1st respondent in making the impugned order were based on misappreciation and misreading of the evidence and as such it is wholly erroneou 5.