Karnataka High Court
Hareesha Shetty vs Food Corporation Of India Head Quarters on 27 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17740-DB
WA No. 391 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. HAREESHA SHETTY
S/O KORAGA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NO.785, D-1, GROUND FLOOR
BDA APARTMENTS
OPPOSITE BWSSB WATER TANK
AUSTIN TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 047
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H M.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by AMBIKA H B
Location: High 1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
Court of HEAD QUARTERS
Karnataka KHADYA SADAN
BARAKAMBA LANE
NEW DELHI - 100 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
ZONAL OFFICE-SOUTH
HADDOWS ROAD
CHENNAI - 600 006
REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(SOUTH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17740-DB
WA No. 391 of 2024
3. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE FOR
STATE OF KARNATAKA
EAST END MAIN ROAD
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
No.24146/2023 DATED 30.01.2024 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned advocate Mr.Muralidhar H.M for the appellant.
2. The present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961 is preferred by the appellant-original
petitioner seeking to call in question the judgment and order dated
30.01.2024 of learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of
the appellant came to be dismissed.
3. The prayer in the writ petition was to direct the respondents
to consider the representations made by the petitioner requesting
for change of his birth date in the service book.
NC: 2024:KHC:17740-DB
3.1 The petitioner joined services under the respondent-Food
Corporation of India on 20.01.1989. At that time, his date of birth
was recorded in the service book as 01.02.1964, on the basis of
the mark-sheet of Karnataka Secondary Education Examination
Board produced by the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner,
inter alia, that the recording of the birth date in his service book, as
above, was a bona fide mistake and that the correct date of birth
was supposed to be 01.12.1964.
4. Learned Single Judge refused to entertain the petition on the
reasoning that the request of the petitioner was too belated to be
countenanced. The petitioner joined services, it was recorded, in
the year 1989 and sought for correction of date of birth in the year
2023 only. The decision of the Supreme Court in Karnataka Rural
Infrastructure Development Limited vs. T.P.Nataraja and
others, (AIR Online 2021 SC 747), was relied by learned Single
Judge to reiterate the principle that delay in applying for correction
in the date of birth recorded in the service record at the time of
initial entry in the service would disentitle the employee to seek
alteration in the date of birth.
NC: 2024:KHC:17740-DB
5. The correction of date of birth has to be within the period
which may be prescribed by the Rules for that purpose. In the
absence of Rules or Regulations, the application seeking correction
in the date of birth would have to be made within the reasonable
time.
5.1 As rightly observed by learned Single Judge, there is a delay
of more than three decades on the part of the petitioner in seeking
correction in the date of birth. The conduct on the part of the
petitioner showed that he was never serious. It was in the year
1992 that the petitioner first wanted the correction, but thereafter
did not effectively pursue the cause. It is the case that he went on
making correspondences. However, it is trite that mere
correspondence would not come to the aid of the petitioner. He
was required to be vigilant about his rights. He made his
representation seeking correction of date of birth thereafter only in
the year 2023 which was at the fag end of his service tenure and
on the eve of his retirement. Thereafter only the petitioner filed the
present petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:17740-DB
5.2 The view taken by learned Single Judge that after 34 years
of gap, the correction in the date of birth could not have been
entertained is eminently proper and legal. The changing of service
record by correcting the date of birth which stood in the record for
long years would be against the public policy, as held by the
Supreme Court. The petitioner woke up on the eve of his
superannuation.
6. No error could be booked in the order of learned Single
Judge refusing the relief to the petitioner in the writ petition.
7. The appeal stands meritless and the same is dismissed
summarily.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory
applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed
of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AHB
