The Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act does not apply to private employees; thus, correction of date of birth in school records is permissible based on valid documentation without a time limit on claims, provided a cause of action exists.

JUDGMENT :

(H.P. SANDESH, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed against reversal of the judgment of the Trial Court, wherein the Trial Court granted the relief of declaration declaring the date of birth of plaintiff as 13.07.1964 and also directed to enter the date of birth as 13.07.1964 instead of 03.07.1964 in the school records maintained by them.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that he was born on 13.07.1964 at Cheluvamba Hospital, Mysore and Mysore City Corporation has issued the birth certificate in this regard. But, in the SSLC Marks card, the date of birth is mentioned as 03.07.1963 instead of 13.07.1964. The plaintiff is working as Lecturer in D. Banumaiah Arts and Commerce College. The said fact is noticed by the plaintiff while entering the family members’ name in the service register. Immediately, the plaintiff obtained for the birth certificate before Mysore City Corporation and noticed that his date of birth is wrongly mentioned as 03.07.1963 in the school records. The plaintiff approached the defendant No.4 to change the date of birth in the school records. But defendant No.4 directed to approach defendant No.3 and then the plaintiff approached the defendant No.3 and defendant No.3 directed the plaintiff to obtain the decree from the competent Court of law. Thereafter, plaintiff issued statutory legal notice to the defendants and after receipt of the notice also, the plaintiff has not changed the date of birth. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, though the defendants are served with notice, they did not choose to appear. Hence, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P6. The defendants have not chosen to produce the evidence or mark any documentary evidence.

5. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly the documents at Exs.P1 to P6, comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has made out the case that his date of birth is 13.07.1964 and in his school records, the same is wrongly entered as 03.07.1963, particularly considering the document of Ex.P1, birth certificate issued by the Mysore City Corporation. In the birth certificate, the age of the appellant is mentioned as 13.07.1964 and plaintiff was born in Cheluvamba Hospital at Mysore and the same was entered by the Mysore City Corporation and they issued the birth certificate. The plaintiff has specifically stated that due to mistake, his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the school records as 03.07.1963 and also comes to the conclusion that no reasons are made out to disbelieve the oral evidence of the plaintiff in this regard and answered issue No.1 in ‘affirmative’ and comes to the conclusion that the same has to be corrected.

6. The Trial Court also taken note of the judgment in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. T. SUNDAR RAJ reported in 1987 KLJ 387, wherein at paragraph No.18, it is held that even in case of Government service, the suit for declaration of age or birth could be maintained if the relief claimed does not relevant to his conditions of service and also taken note of other judgment in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. GURUBASAPPA reported in ILR 1996 KARNATAKA 1175, wherein also it is held that since no relief of declaration and consequential relief correction of date of birth is not sought, it cannot be said