SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Kar) 660

T.N.VALLINAYAGAM
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE – Appellant
Versus
SHANKARA GANAPATHY PATHAK – Respondent


Advocates:
G.Narayana Hebbar, S.G.BHAGAWAN

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 Mys












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top