IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.26228/2019 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI ARUN N, S/O NAGENDRA S, AGE 19 YEARS, R/O KALANAHUNDI VILLAGE, HARAVE HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TQ & DIST-571128.
... PETITIONER AND:
(BY SMT. B.N. MANJULA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGARAJA R. C., ADVOCATE) 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, M S BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCITONS, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313.
3. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DATED 10.9.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B FOR CORRECTION OF DATE OF BIRTH OF THE PETITIONER IN THE SCHOOL RECORD AND MARKS CARD.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 26.9.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-A to the writ petition, inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 10.9.2018 produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition for correction of date of birth of the petitioner in school records and marks card.
3. The petitioner has challenged the endorsement at Annexure-A issued by the respondent No.2 mainly on the ground that the date of birth of the petitioner was correctly submitted at the time of admission of the petitioner before the school authorities. But the school authorities have wrongly mentioned the date of birth of the petitioner as 31.1.2000 instead of 31.10.2000. In support of his contention, copy of the birth certificate issued by the Mysore City Corporation is relied upon.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the mistake committed by the school authorities in entering the date of birth of the petitioner in the school records has come to his knowledge only after the receipt of the 10th standard marks card. Accordingly, representations were made by the petitioner’s father to make necessary corrections in the date of birth of the petitioner in the school records. But the same has been denied by the respondent No.2 with an observation that the petitioner has to approach the competent civil court for correction of the date of birth in SSLC marks card in terms of the Government Circular dated 26.10.2015, which goes contrary to the birth certificate issued by the Mysore City Corporation at Annexure-C to the writ petition.
5. It is settled law that the respondents not being the competent authorities to correct the date of birth in the marks card could not exercise the said power. In such circumstances, the endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 stating that the said Department has no jurisdiction to correct the date of birth in the marks card and the petitioner has to seek redressal of his grievance before the competent civil Court in terms of the Government Circular dated 26.10.2015, cannot be found fault with.
6. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance before the competent civil court in accordance with law, if advised so.
Sd/- JUDGE MD