Karnataka High Court
Smt Suvarna vs The Director on 7 December, 2021
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.A. No.1153 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUVARNA
D/O GANAPATHIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.695/1, OPP TO
VIJAYA THEATRE, NEW STREET
HINAKAL, MYSORE-570017.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. M.S. CHANDRASHEKAR BABU, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR
WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPT
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT
NEAR K.D. CIRCLE
MYSORE-560009.
3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
MYSURU RURAL, NO.32 U PARK
K T LAYOUT, MYSURU-570023.
4. THE CHILD WELFARE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560078.
2
5. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA SECONDARY
EXAMINATION BOARD
8TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560003.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA AS AMICUS CURIAE)
---
THIS W.A. IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA IN WRIT PETITION NO.19944/2019 (S-RES)
DATED 30.08.2021. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER DATE OF BIRTH AS 22-7-1966 PASSED BY THE LOK-
ADALATH COURT, AT SAGARA IN CRI.MISC.109/2018 DATED
08.12.2018.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.M.S.Chandrashekar Babu, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned amicus curiae.
This appeal emanates from an order dated 30.08.2021
passed by learned Single Judge by which the writ petition
preferred by the appellant seeking a direction to the
respondents to consider the representations dated
20.01.2019 and 18.04.2019 by which the petitioner had
sought to correct the Date of Birth has been rejected.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are
that the appellant was appointed as an Anganawadi worker in
the year 1991. The Date of Birth of the appellant was
recorded as per the records submitted by her at the time of
entry into the service as 01.05.1959. The appellant on or
about 11.12.2018 submitted a representation to the Child
Welfare Development Officer to consider her Date of Birth as
22.07.1966 instead of 01.05.1959. Thereafter, the appellant
submitted another representation on 20.04.2019 seeking a
direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 not to relieve her from
service on 01.05.2019 on the ground that she has filed
O.S.No.51/2019 before the civil court at Sagar and there is a
likelihood of appellant getting an injunction. However, the
appellant was relieved from service on 30.04.2019. The
appellant thereupon filed a writ petition seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to consider the
representations dated 20.01.2019 and 18.04.2019. The
learned Single Judge by an order dated 30.08.2021 has
dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant had produced a transfer certificate issued by school
authority from which it is evident that her Date of Birth is
22.07.1966. It is further submitted that an order dated
08.12.2018 was passed by the Lok Adalath and therefore,
the respondents are bound to treat the Date of Birth of the
appellant as 22.07.1966. In support of aforesaid
submissions, reliance has been placed on a decision of the
division bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in M VIJAYA
BHASKARA REDDY VS HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, 2002 (1) ALD 489.
4. We have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
The appellant entered the service on 11.03.1991 and on the
basis of the documents produced by the appellant at the
relevant time her Date of Birth was reflected as 01.05.1959.
After a delay of 27 years, the appellant for the first time
submitted a representation requesting for change of Date of
Birth. It is trite law that the prayer with regard to change in
the Date of Birth cannot be made at the fag end of the
service. [SEE: LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF
INDIA VS R BASAVARAJU (2016) 15 SCC 78]. So far as
reliance placed by the appellant on the judgment passed by
Lok Adalath is concerned, suffice it to say that respondents
No.1 to 3 were not parties to the aforesaid proceedings.
Therefore, the judgment dated 08.12.2018 passed by the Lok
Adalath does not bind the respondents No.1 to 3.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge.
We had requested Mr.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned
amicus curiae to assist us. Before parting with this appeal,
we would like to place on record the able assistance rendered
to us by learned amicus curiae.
In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal,
the same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
