Dismissed¶¶57

D Shashikala v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2025WA/1360/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

alteration of date of birth in service record; Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act 1974 Section 4 statutory bar; condonation of delay 159 days differently-abled applicant; music teacher voluntary retirement 01.09.2001; fresh SSLC endorsement not valid for service purpose; endorsement 22.02.2023 respondent No.4; decree Original Suit No.4988 of 2013; writ appeal under Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act 1961 dismissed; Single Judge dismissal upheld.

What did the court decide?

No relief on merits; the only accommodation was condonation of the 159-day delay in filing the appeal (I.A.No.1 of 2024 allowed). ¶¶57

D Shashikala Vs the Secretary — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on merits; the only accommodation was condonation of the 159-day delay in filing the appeal (I.A.No.1 of 2024 allowed).

¶¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 159 days in preferring the writ appeal ought to be condoned (I.A.No.1 of 2024). +1 more

¶¶32

Court's answer

Because of the applicant's differently-abled capacity, the applicant could not quickly arrange funds for legal expenses, which contributed to the passage of time leading to the delay in filing the appeal; having instructed immediately for the certified copy, no indolence or negligence is attributable to the applicant.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

Sufficient cause having been made out, the delay of 159 days in preferring the appeal is condoned and I.A.No.1 of 2024 is allowed.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

The fresh Secondary School Leaving Certificate issued pursuant to the decree bears an endorsement recording a condition that the alteration of the date of birth reflected therein would not enure valid for any service purpose.ratio¶¶48
Under Section 4 of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974, notwithstanding anything contained in any law or any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, no alteration of the age or date of birth of a State servant as accepted and recorded in the service register shall be made except under Section 5.ratio¶¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Writ Appeal No. 1360 of 2024 (S-RES), decided 13.02.2025 (Coram: N. V. Anjaria, CJ and M.I. Arun, J; order per the Chief Justice). Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 against the learned Single Judge's dismissal of Writ Petition No.191/2024, in which the appellant, a music teacher who took voluntary retirement on 01.09.2001, had challenged the endorsement dated 22.02.2023 of respondent No.4 refusing alteration of her date of birth in the service record despite a decree in Original Suit No.4988 of 2013 and a fresh Secondary School Leaving Certificate bearing an endorsement that the altered date of birth would not enure valid for any service purpose. Delay of 159 days in filing the appeal condoned (I.A.No.1 of 2024 allowed) as the differently-abled applicant could not promptly arrange funds for legal expenses and no indolence or negligence was attributable. Appeal dismissed: under Section 4 of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974, no alteration of the age or date of birth recorded in the service register may be made except under Section 5, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court; a long-standing date-of-birth entry cannot be altered at the fag end of service tenure save within the time stipulated under the rules; no error was found in the Single Judge's judgment.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:6495-DB WA No. 1360 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1360 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

D. SHASHIKALA D/O LATE D. VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS NO. 31/50, GOPIGANA NILAYA SANNIDHI ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI K. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD MALLESHWARAM, 6TH CROSS BANGALORE-560 003.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6495-DB WA No. 1360 of 2024

¶18

THE REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) B.B.M.P. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BANGALORE-560 004.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATIVE) BANGALORE SOUTH B.B.M.P. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BANGALORE-560 004.

¶20

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL PARK HOUSE ROAD DEVARAJA ARASU ROAD OPP. TO K.P.S.C. BANGALORE-560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1, R2 & R5; R3 AND R4 SERVED)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 13.02.2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.191/2024(S-RES) ON THE FILE OF THIS HONB'LE COURT, ETC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6495-DB WA No. 1360 of 2024

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and

¶27

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶28

ORAL ORDER ON I.A.NO.1 OF 2024

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶30

Heard learned advocate Mr. K. Raghavendra for the

¶31

applicant-appellant and learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5.

¶32

This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 159 days in preferring the appeal.

¶33

The passage of time leading to delay is explained in the accompanying affidavit. It was stated that after the judgment and order was delivered by learned Singe Judge dismissing the writ petition on 13.02.2025, the applicant instructed his advocate to apply for certified copy immediately for filing the appeal. It was further stated that, however, due to disability, the applicant was unable to arrange funds for payment of legal expenses. Time was consumed in collecting the money which lead to delay of 159 days.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:6495-DB WA No. 1360 of 2024

¶36

It appears that because of differently-abled capacity of the

¶37

applicant, he was not able to quickly arrange funds for legal expenses which contributed to passage of time leading to delay in filing of the appeal. The applicant had instructed to immediately apply for certified copy with an intention to file the appeal.

¶38

Therefore, it is not possible to attribute any indolence and negligence on part of the applicant.

¶39

Sufficient cause is made out. Delay is condoned.

¶40

I.A.No.1 of 2024 is accordingly allowed.

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

Having condoned the delay as per above order, the appeal was taken up for hearing as requested and consented by both the sides, through their learned advocates.

¶43

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

¶44

The petitioner-appellant was working as a music teacher.

¶45

She took voluntary retirement on 01.09.2001. She had an occasion to file writ petition No.191 of 2024 seeking to call in question the endorsement dated 22.02.2023 issued by respondent No.4,

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6495-DB WA No. 1360 of 2024

¶47

whereby the request of the petitioner-appellant to alter the date of birth in her service record was not entertained by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was the case of the petitioner before the authorities that her date of birth was corrected pursuant to the decree passed in Original Suit No.4988 of 2013.

¶48

3.1 From the facts on record, it appears that pursuant to the decree passed, the petitioner had approached the authorities for alteration of the date of birth and a fresh Secondary School Leaving Certificate was issued. The said school leaving certificate figures on record (Annexure-G page 50). It bears an endorsement in the vernacular which was explained to the Court to suggest that it was a condition put in the fresh certificate that the alteration of the date of birth as reflected therein would not enure valid for any service purpose.

¶49

Even otherwise, the regulations under the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 provides under Section 4 as under,

¶50

"4. Bar of alteration of age expect under the Act: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or and judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, no alteration of the age or date of birth of a state servant as accepted and recorded or deemed

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:6495-DB WA No. 1360 of 2024

¶53

to have been accepted and recorded in his service register or book or any other record of service under section 3 shall, in so far as it relates to his conditions of service as such state Servant, be made except under Section 5."

¶54

Apart from all the above, weighty aspects operate in and

¶55

against the petitioner-appellant which would disentitle her to seek any relief with regard to change of the date of birth in the service record. It is trite principle that a long standing entry regarding the date of birth in the service record cannot be altered at the fag end of the service tenure of the employee, and the change in the date of birth could be permitted only within the time stipulated as may be allowed under the rules.

¶56

For all the aforesaid reasons, no error could be booked in the judgment and order of learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition and not granting relief to the petitioner.

¶57

The appeal is meritless and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶58

SD/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶59

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶60

hkh, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

D Shashikala v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Shashikala v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

No. 2760 Chettalli Multi Purpose Primary Agricultural Rural Co. Operative Society Limited Vs Smt. Sylaja

Mr Dilip Pirigal Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Sunil Kumar K Vs the State of Karnataka

S R Chandrashekar Vs Durgashree N

Giridhar Kulkarni Vs Forest Advisory Committee

Raghupathi Vs the State of Karnataka