T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J.

( 1 ) THE University of Mysore is the appellant challenges the decree of alteration of date of birth granted by the courts below from 2'. 10. 1938 to 6. 3. 1940.

( 2 ) THE suit in O. S. No. 1773/1992 on the file of the Second Additional First Munsiff is for a declaration that the date of birth of the plaintiff is 6. 3. 1940 and not 2. 10. 1938 and for a mandatory injunction by way of direction to direct the first defendant-University the date of birth of the first plaintiff as 6. 3. 1940. The suit was decreed by the courts below, challenging the say of the second appeal now preferred. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that the suit itself is not maintainable as the prayer should have been to direct the 3rd and 4th defendant to correct the date of birth in the S. S. L. C. book which the primary record. The University first defendant is bound by such record and it cannot incidently rely upon any other record except the record granted under the educational rules.

( 3 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the above, it is seen that the plaintiff joined the services of the university on 25. 11. 1968 as Research Assistant, class-I at the Oriental Research Institute of University of Mysore by giving the date of birth as 2. 10. 1938. It is his claim that on 24. 7. 1991, the Tahsildar had given him a certificate of date of birth and immediately he came forward with the present suit on 18. 12. 1992.

( 4 ) THOUGH the defence resisted contending that the date of birth in the S. S. L. C. certificate has been duly and properly mentioned and the Karnataka Secondary Education Board act of 1. 966, is a bar to the suit, unless the certificate issued under that Act is challenged.

( 5 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the courts below wrongly relied upon Ex. P. 2 and also holding that non-examination of such a person is not fatal to the validity of the document accepting the certificate issued and granted the relief. The appellate court simply confirmed the same.

( 6 ) THE second appeal has been admitted on the following question of law. " (A) Whether the courts below were justified in granting a decree for correction of the date of birth of the plaintiff from 2. 10. 1938 to 6. 3. 1940 on the evidence let in? (b) Even assuming that the plaintiff was entitled to seek declaration on regarding date of birth, whether the civil court has jurisdiction to direct the employer to correct the date of birth in the service records so as to extend the period of service of the employee? (c) Whether such a direction to correct the date of birth in the records of the employer would amount to interfering with the terms of service between the parties and specifically enforcing a contract of personal services beyond the contractual term? (d) Whether judgment and decree of the courts below in so far as direction to correct the date of birth in the employment record is opposed to the decisions of this court in ILR 1992 Kar. 554 and ILR 1995 Kar. 680 and ILR 1194 Kar. 2489?".

( 7 ) SO far as question No. (a) is concerned, it cannot be said that the evidence available on record justifying the conclusion arrived at the courts below. Any event such evidence is insufficient to arrive at such a conclusion. So far as question No. (b) is concerned, the answer is in favour of the appellant and against the plaintiff because the plaintiff has no right to direct the employer to change the date of birth as there is a separate machinery maintained and available for that purpose. There is answered to question No. (c) and (d) also.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant relied upon in the case of R. Kuppuraj v. Bharath Gold Mines Ltd. the dictum reads as follows :"there are no compelling reasons to grant any injunctive relief since the conduct of the plaintiff in accepting the recorded date of birth for more than three decades gives a lie to his present claim of change in the date of birth. The present claim of the plaintiff based on educational Certificate, birth extract seems very inconsequ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document