Prof. M Munirajappa vs Bangalore University
2022 Latest Caselaw 1983 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                          AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

               W.A.No.1244/2021 (S - RES)

BETWEEN :
PROF. M.MUNIRAJAPPA
S/O MUNIYA BHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKED AS PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
LAST SERVED AS
PROFESSOR & DIRECTOR
POST-GRADUATION CENTRE
RAMANAGARA-562159

R/AT NO.80/1, 2ND CROSS
BHAWANINAGAR,
RAILWAY LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 110                           ...APPELLANT

                (BY SRI A.DHARMESH, ADV.)

AND :
1.      BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
        REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
        GNANABHARATHI, BENGALURU-560 056

2.      THE KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION
        EXAMINATION BOARD
        REP BY ITS SECRETARY
        6TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
                            -2-



     BENGALURU-560 003
3.   THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
     PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
     EARLIER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
     PRESENTLY TUMKUR SOUTH DISTRICT
     TUMKUR-572102                    ...RESPONDENTS


     THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2021 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.NO.4150/2021 AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                   JUDGMENT

This intra-Court appeal is directed against the

order dated 11.06.2021 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.4150/2021 whereby the Writ Petition

filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The appellant challenging the notification

issued by the Bengaluru University dated 21.12.2020,

wherein the appellant was shown to be retiring on

31.07.2021 applying his date of birth as 22.07.1959

approached the Writ Court which came to be rejected.

Hence, this Writ Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the respondent No.3 having been made enquiries

passed an order directing the concerned schools to carry

out the corrections in the age of the appellant in their

respective admission registers and send the same for

counter signing. Accordingly, the admission registers

pertaining to the appellant has been corrected and sent to

the respondent No.3 for further action. Ignoring these

vital aspects learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ

Petition. Learned counsel further submitted that the

correct date of birth of the appellant being 22.07.1964,

the notification issued by the Bengaluru University

considering his date of birth as 22.07.1959 is wholly

perverse. Without adjudicating on the aspect of the age of

the appellant, the impugned notification has been issued

in gross violation of principles of natural justice. These

vital aspects are not considered by the learned Single

Judge. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks for

allowing the appeal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant and perusing the material on record,

we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the Writ

Court as well as the notification impugned [Annexure-A]

insofar as it relates to the appellant for the following

reasons:

The documents relied upon by the appellant

namely, an admission extract for the Government Model

Primary Boys School, Madabal, Magadi Taluk and a

document for completion of his 10th Standard in the

year 1977 i.e., at the age of 13 years are hard to accept,

the same being against the rules governing the

admission of a student to the primary school. Ex-facie it

appears the said documents are illogical.

Secondly, the Karnataka Secondary Education

Board by its communication dated 25.02.2021 has

confirmed the date of birth of the appellant as

22.07.1959. It is well settled law that no correction of

the date of birth could be claimed by an employee at the

verge of his retirement and no adjudication could be

made at this point of time. The younger age by five years

claimed at this juncture of time sans producing the

legally acceptable document is wholly untenable.

5. Learned Single Judge having analyzed these

aspects in a right perspective has denied the claim of

the appellant which cannot be faulted with.

6. The order of the learned Single Judge

impugned and the notification dated 21.05.2020

[Annexure-A] do not suffer from any infirmity or

illegality.

For the reasons aforesaid, Writ Appeal stands

dismissed.

No order as to costs.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE

NC.