- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2582 WP No. 100319 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100319 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: USHA B. N. D/O. B. NAGENDRAPPA, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O: 3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS, GAURISHANKAR NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI- 581115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, AND SMT. VAIBHAVI INAMDHAR, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, BENGLURU- 01. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU- 01. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGLAURU- 01. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2582 WP No. 100319 of 2025 BAGALKOT- 587101. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT- 587313. 6. THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU- 01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO PASS ORDER FOR CORRECTION OF DATE OF BIRTH OF THE PETITIONER AS 23/10/1990 IN PLACE OF 01/06/1989, IN COMPLIANCE TO THE CIRCULAR DATED 26/10/2015 BEARING NO. SAMKHYE.ED.100DTB 2014 ANNEXURE-C AND JUDGEMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND 2ND ADDL. JMFC., COURT, RANEBENNUR IN O.S. NO. 97/2023, DATED 10/08/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-D. TO ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2582 WP No. 100319 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “a) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 to pass order for correction of date of birth of the petitioner as 23/10/1990 in place of 01/06/1989, in compliance to the circular dated 26/10/2015 Bearing No. SAMKHYE.ED.100DTB 2014 Annexure-C and Judgement and Decree passed by Addl. Civil Judge and 2nd Addl. Jmfc., Court, Ranebennur in O.S. No. 97/2023, dated 10/08/2023 vide Annexure-D. b) To issue any other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Dinesh M.Kulkarni along with Smt.Vaibhavi Inamdar appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA Sri.Sharad V. Magadum appearing for the respondent-State. 3. The petitioner is said to have projected her date of birth as 01.06.1989, completes every examination with the said date of birth i.e. 01.06.1989. Later it appears, she becomes aware, that out of ignorance 01.06.1989 was projected as per date of birth, but the actual date of birth was 23.10.1990. The petitioner then institutes - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2582 WP No. 100319 of 2025 O.S.No.97/2023 for change of date of birth and correction of it in the school records. The suit is decreed. The said order was challenged by the State before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.9/2024, which also comes to be dismissed on 21.11.2024. Notwithstanding the aforesaid dismissal of the Regular Appeal, affirming the order passed in O.S.No.97/2023, the State has not implemented the same and the said action of non-implementation has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.Dinesh M Kulkarni submits that the State was a party to the Original Suit. State prefers an appeal against the order passed in the Original Suit. The appeal goes against the State, and said order as on today has become final. The learned counsel would further take this Court through the observations made in the Regular Appeal to contend that the State wanted to withdraw the appeal and implement the order. In that light, he would submit that there is no warrant for the State not to implement the order in O.S.No.97/2023, as affirmed in R.A.No.9/2024. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2582 WP No. 100319 of 2025 5. Learned AGA on the other hand, would seek to refute the submission contending that if the order is implemented, it would be that the petitioner has joined 1st standard at 4 years and 3 months as against 5 years that was prevalent rule at the relevant point in time. He would therefore contend that this would result in anomaly and would submit that against the order in Regular Appeal, the State is contemplating to file regular second appeal before this Court, but however it is yet to be filed. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission by both the parties. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The date of birth of the petitioner was projected in the records as 01.06.1989 and on realization that it was 23.10.1990, institutes a suit in O.S.No.97/2023. The suit is decreed by the following order: “11. ¸ÀzÀj CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C®èUÀ¼ÉAiÀĪÀ ¸ÀĮĪÁV ¥Áæ¸Á - 1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå Jf¦gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ°UÉ M¼À¥Àr¹ PÉýzÀ J¯Áè ¸À®ºÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C®èUÀ¼É¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CªÀgÀ ¥ÉÆõÀPÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄAvÉ CªÀgÀÄ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ±Á¯Á zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2582 WP No. 100319 of 2025 JAzÀgÉ ¤¦-1 gÀ d£Àä ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀgÀÆ ¸À»vÀ vÀ¥ÁàV £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgɺÀAiÀÄÄf8ME. G½zÀAvÉ ¥Áæ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ°UÉ M¼ÀÄ¥Àr¹zÁUÀ®Æ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉ ¥ÀÇgÀÄPÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀ vÉUÉAiÀÄĪÀ°è ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ «¥sÀ®ªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀæwªÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¸ÁPÀëöå «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C®èUÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÁQë «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ M¼ÀÄ¥ÀqÀªÀ°è «¥sÀ®ªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ½AzÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀiËTPÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÁPÀëöåªÀÅ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ 1 jA 16 gÀªÀgÀ ±Á¯Á – PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¥ÁàV £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á©Ãw¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ/ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¤dªÁzÀ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ ¤¦-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 gÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.10.1990 JAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 gÀ «ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁgÁvÀäPÀªÁV GvÀÛj¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 12. «ªÁzÁA±À 3:- F ªÉÄÃ¯É ZÀað¹zÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½UÁV F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. DzÉñÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ F zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß rQæ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ªÁ¢AiÀÄ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ 23.10.1990 JAzÀÄ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ WÉÆö¹zÉ. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ d£Àä ¢£ÁA 23.10.1990 JAzÀÄ ªÁ¢UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÁävÀPÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÉ. wæð£ÀAvÉ rQæ §gɬÄj. (²ÃWÀæ°¦UÁgÀjUÉ G¸ÀÛ¯ÉÃR£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖ£ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ °¥sÀåAvÀgÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ §½PÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹, w¢Ý §»gÀAUÀ - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2582 WP No. 100319 of 2025 £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è F ¢£À CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 10£Éà DUÀµïÖ 2023 gÀAzÀÄ WÉÆö¹zÉÝãÉ)” 8. The said decree is challenged by the State before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.9/2024. The First Appellate Court answering all the contentions of the of the State dismisses the appeal by the following order: “20. Secondly, the defendants have contended that the parents of the plaintiff being educated persons have violated the circular passed by the Government. As per the said circular a child has to completed 5 years 10 months of age for taking admission for 1st standard. Further the counsel for the defendants have furnished the said circular along with memo. The Government has passed the said circular on 17-12-2022, but the plaintiff has completed her 10th Standard during March 2005. As such, the plaintiff has completed her 10th standard education before passing the said circular. Hence, whatever the grounds urged by the defendants are not sustainable. Moreover, though the defendants have appeared through AGP and have filed written statement by denying all the plaint averments. But to prove their contentions, they have not made any efforts to lead their oral evidence nor produced any documents. Hence, it is also one of the lacuna on the part of the defendants to prove their case. 21. Further learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the Government Circular dtd: 26-10-2015, wherein at para No.5 it is stated that; PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ²PÀët PÁAiÉÄÝ 1983 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 11(1) gÀ°è 5 ªÀµÀð vÀÄA©zÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ ±Á¯ÉUÉ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä PÀ¤µÀ× 5ªÀµÀðªÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ «zÁåyðUÀ¼À d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ°è wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ F CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ£ÀzÀ°èlÄÖPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀÄ, MAzÀÄ ¥ÀPÀë EzÀQÌAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2582 WP No. 100319 of 2025 £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀÝ°è wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ rQæ vÀgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ CªÀ±ÀåPÀ. 6. J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ±Á¯Á zÁR¯Áw CAPÀ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ, CqÀØ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ, ¥ÉÇõÀPÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ EvÁå¢UÀ¼ÀÄ wzÀÄÝ¥ÀrAiÀiÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÝ°è £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ rQæ ¥ÀqÉzÀħAzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ±Á¯Á zÁR¯Áw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ²Ã°¹ f¯Áè G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ 15 ¢£ÀzÉƼÀUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁr DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, On persual of the above circualar, the plaintiff has completed her 5 years while she was taking admissioin for 1st standard and as per Ex.P.4 SSLC marks card, the plaintiff has completed her 10th standard during March 2005 and as per the above circular, the plaintiff has approached the Court to rectify her date of birth in the school documents. 22. The defendant No.8/respondent No.8 is only contesting party in the suit as well as in appeal. On 22-10-2024, the respondent No.8 has appeared before the Court through AGP and has filed memo stating that, as per the birth certificate and as per the judgment and decree of the trial Court in OS No.97/2023 they are ready to rectify the date of birth of the plaintiff in the school records and prayed to dismiss the appeal as not press. Hence, considering the averments made in the memo, there is no impediment to dismiss the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 23. Hence, on persual of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court has come to a right conclusion by relying on the documents produced by the plaintiff, it does not require any interference from this Court. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court is just and proper. The trial court has rightly come to the right - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2582 WP No. 100319 of 2025 and correct conclusion, it does not require any interference from this court. As such, the judgment and decree of trial court is not capricious or perverse or illegal. Therefore, my finding on point No. 2 is in the negative. 24. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion made above and findings given on Point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following; : O R D E R : The Regular Appeal preferred by the Appellants/Original Defendants U/o 41 Rule 1 and 2 R/W Sec 96 of CPC against the original plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OS No. 97/2023 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Ranebennur dtd: 10- 08-2023 is hereby dismissed with no costs. The judgment and decree of the trial court in OS No.97/2023 is hereby confirmed. Draw decree accordingly.” 9. It is necessary to notice that the State itself had filed a memo before the First Appellate Court seeking to withdraw the appeal on the score that they are intending to implement the order. 10. In that light, it would not lie with the State to contend that they wanting to prefer regular second appeal against the order in R.A.No.9/2024, which affirms the suit in O.S.No.97/2023. Be the submissions as they are, in the light of the decree becoming final, the petitioner becomes - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2582 WP No. 100319 of 2025 entitled for issuance of mandamus to implement the said orders. The 4th respondent shall within an outer limit of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order implement the orders, so passed, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79