Karnataka High Court
Kirana S/O Nagesh Marathi vs Deputy Director(A) on 23 May, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shettypresided Bysvsj
-1-
WP No. 146078 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 146078 OF 2020 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
KIRANA S/O NAGESH MARATHI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: HAKKIGADDE,
POST: HEGADEKATTA,
TQ: SIRSI-581403,
DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR(A),
RAKESH S PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
HARIHAR SIRSI EDUCATION DISTRICT,
Digitally signed by RAKESH
SIRSI(UK)-581401.
S HARIHAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Date: 2023.05.27 11:47:04
2. THE SECRETARY OF KARNATAKA,
+0530
SECONDARY EXAMINATION BOARD AND
DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
BELAGAVI DIVISION,
BELAGAVI-590001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF
PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION,
BENGALURU-01.
-2-
WP No. 146078 of 2020
4. THE DIRECTOROF TECHNICAL EXAMINATION,
BENGALURU-01.
5. THE HEAD MASTER,
GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL ONIGADDE,
PO : HEGGDEKATTA,
TQ : SIRSI (U.K)-581403.
6. GOVERNMENT COMPOSITE HIGH SCHOOL
DEVANAHALLI, TQ : SIRSI,
DIST : UTTARA KANNADA-581403.
7. THE PRINCIPAL,
SHRI MARIKAMBA GOVERNMENT COLLEGE,
COURT ROAD, SIRSI, TQ : SIRSI,
DIST : UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
8. THE PRINCIPAL,
R.N.SHETTY POLYTECHNIC SIRSI,
TQ : SIRSI,
DIST :UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S. KULAKARNI, AGA FOR R1-R5 & R6;
R7 & R8 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2019
MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D BEARING NO. D« 5(2)/ ±Á.zÁ.w /£Áå¥Àæ
-372/ 2017/ 2019-20/ 485 ISSUED BY FIRST
RESPONDENT & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 146078 of 2020
ORDER
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India is filed seeking for the following
reliefs:
"A) Issue writ of certiorari qushing the order
dated 03.06.2019 marked at Annexure - D bearing
No.D« 5(2)/ ±Á.zÁ.w /£Áå¥Àæ - 372/ 2017/ 2019-20/
485 issued by first respondent.
B) Issue writ of Mandamus directing the
second respondent to consider the representation of
petitioner dated 09.07.2019 marked at Annexure - E
and 2nd respondent be further directed to rectify the
date of birth of petitioner in S.S.L.C. marks card as
'13.01.1995' instead of 13.01.1994 and be further
directed to issue corrected S.S.L.C. Marks card of
petitioner in the interest of justice."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned AGA for the respondent Nos.1 to 6.
3. The petitioner is a permanent resident of
Hakkigadde in Sirsi Taluka, Uttara Kannada District and he
was born on 13.01.1995.
WP No. 146078 of 2020
4. The petitioner's father's name is Nagesh Marathi
and mother's name is Nagaratna Marathi. In the birth
certificate issued to the petitioner, his date of birth was
mentioned as 13.01.1995. But his name was mentioned as
Kiran Marathi instead of Kirana Marathi and the name of the
father was mentioned as Nagesh Marathi instead of Nagesh.
Under the circumstances, the petitioner had instituted a suit
in O.S. No.372/2017 against the respondents herein
seeking the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction.
The said suit was partly decreed by the jurisdictional Civil
Court on 27.09.2018 and the name of the petitioner was
declared as Kirana Marathi and his date of birth was
declared as 13.01.1995 and the name of his father was
declared as Nagesh Marathi and mandatory injunction was
issued against the Registrar of Birth and Death to issue a
rectified birth certificate to the petitioner. Thereafterwards,
the petitioner has given a representation to the first
respondent to make necessary changes in his school
records based on the decree passed in O.S. No.372/2017.
WP No. 146078 of 2020
Initially the first respondent had issued an order dated
19.03.2019 directing to carry out necessary changes as per
the decree. Subsequently, he issued the impugned
endorsement / order dated 03.06.2019 stating that since
the prayer sought for in the suit for correction of the date of
birth in the school records was rejected, the request made
by the petitioner to make necessary changes in the school
records cannot be considered. Being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the prayer for mandatory injunction for correction of the
school records was rejected by the Civil Court in view of the
judgment of this Court in the case of the Government of
Karnataka, Rep. by Deputy Commissioner and others
Vs. Kumari Shipla Shrishail Baragadagi reported in ILR
2014 KAR 5389 on the ground that the Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to issue any such directions. He submits that
even if that is so, the first respondent is required to
independently consider the claim of the petitioner.
WP No. 146078 of 2020
6. Though the learned AGA has seriously opposed
the writ petition, he however does not dispute that the
decree has been passed by the competent Civil Court
declaring the name of the petitioner, his father and also the
date of birth of the petitioner.
7. It is not in dispute that the competent Civil Court
has declared the name of the petitioner, name of his father
and the date of birth of the petitioner. Even if the decree is
not binding on the first respondent, the prayer made by the
petitioner to carry out necessary changes in the school
records cannot be rejected solely on the said ground and it
is for the first respondent to independently consider the
case of the petitioner, if he so desires. It is also open to the
first respondent, while making such consideration to place
reliance on the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.
No.372/2017. Under the circumstances, I am of the
considered view that the impugned order passed by the first
respondent vide Annexure-D is unsustainable. Accordingly,
the following:
WP No. 146078 of 2020
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order at annexure-D, dated
03.06.2019 issued by the first respondent is
quashed and respondent Nos.1 & 2 are
directed to consider the representation dated
09.07.2019 as per Annexure-E and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law
taking into consideration all the materials
that may be placed by the petitioner in
support of his prayer made in the
representation at Annexrue-E.
(iii) The said exercise shall be made by
respondent Nos.1 & 2 as expeditiously as
possible but not later than a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Rsh & Vnp* / Ct: BCK
