Karnataka High Court
Sri R L Parameshwaraiah vs The Honble Chief Secretary on 24 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43508
RSA No. 645 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2023 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
SRI R L PARAMESHWARAIAH
S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH B,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO 202, SHIMSHA BLOCK,
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560047.
ALSO AT: RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE, BARGUR POST,
HANDANKERE HOBLI, CHIKNAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMKUR DIST-572119
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.S.VARADARAJAN & SRI.B.S.RAGHAVENDRA,
ADVOCATES)
Digitally
signed by AND:
CHAITHRA
A
1. THE HONBLE CHIEF SECRETARY
Location:
HIGH GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE HEAD MASTER
GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL,
RANGENAHALLI VILLAGE, BARGUR POST,
HANDANKERE HOBLI, CHIKNAYAKANAHLLI TALUK,
TUMKUR DIST-572119
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43508
RSA No. 645 of 2023
3. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER (BEO)
CHIKNAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
CHIKNAYAKANAHALLI TOWN, TUMKUR DIST
4. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION
BOARD, 6TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BANGALORE-560003
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.03.2023
PASSED IN RA NO.21/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI. DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 12.08.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.245/2020 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHIKKANAYAKANHALLI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful
plaintiff who is seeking a declaration that his date of birth
is 16.7.1964 as against 2.6.1963 reflected in his service
records. Both the Courts have concurrently held that
plaintiff cannot seek such a declaration on account of
laches and accordingly suit is dismissed.
NC: 2023:KHC:43508
2. The plaintiff is seeking a declaration that his
correct date of birth is 16.7.1964 and his date of birth is
wrongly reflected in the school records as 2.6.1963. The
trial Court while relying on the judgment rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Rural
Infeastructure Development Limited .vs. T.P.
Nataraja and others1 declined to grant relief of
declaration on the ground plaintiff is seeking correction at
the fag end of his carrier when he is about to attain the
age of superannuation. The trial Court held that plaintiff
intends to postpone his attainment of superannuation and
therefore, declined to grant the relief of declaration of date
of birth.
The appellate Court has concurred with the findings
recorded by the trial Court and the appeal is dismissed.
These concurrent findings are under challenge.
(2021) 12 SCC 27
NC: 2023:KHC:43508
3. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and
perused the concurrent findings.
4. The plaintiff who is working as an in-charge
Chief Engineer in HUDCO, which is a Central Government
Organization, is now seeking correction of his death of
birth. Plaintiff has instituted the suit when he had one
year time to retire from service. If the date of birth of the
plaintiff is accepted by the Department, nothing prevented
plaintiff to seek correction of his date of birth at the time
of joining the department. In the judgment cited supra,
the Apex Court has clearly held that a Government
employee cannot seek correction of date of birth which is
intended to seek extension in service. The Apex Court in
the case of State of Maharashtra and another .vs.
Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble and others2 held that
correction at the fag end would be at the cost of large
number of employees who are due for promotion and
therefore, such action of the employees seeking correction
(2010) 14 SCC 423
NC: 2023:KHC:43508
of date of birth at the fag end should be discouraged.
Similar views are expressed by the Apex Court in the case
of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Vs. Raj Kumar
Agnihotri3
5. In the light of the discussions made supra, I do
not find any substantial questions of law arising for
consideration.
The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly,
stands dismissed.
Pending IA's if any, stands disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ALB
(2005)11SCC 465: 2006 SCC (L&S) 96
