State’s SSLC Birth-Date Error: Karnataka HC Upholds Direction To Appoint Excise Guard Candidate If Otherwise Suitable

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s order suffered from an error in its appreciation of the facts or application of law warranting interference under the High Court’s writ jurisdiction

The court held

The Court answered the framed question in the negative and found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s order.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition and granted the State eight weeks to comply with the Tribunal’s direction to appoint Manjunath, if otherwise suitable, against a direct-recruitment vacancy or through a supernumerary post; the appointment was to be prospective

01Facts

The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) invited applications for Excise Guard (Male) posts. Manjunath applied under the SC (Kannada) category, passed the competitive examination and attended document verification.

pp. 3–7

His SSLC marks card showed his date of birth as 15 June 1980, while his transfer certificate and cumulative record showed 15 June 1982.

pp. 3–7

After being asked to produce a corrected SSLC card within the prescribed time, he sought correction from the education authorities and filed a civil suit for correction and declaration. A State education official corrected the SSLC record while the suit was pending; Manjunath then did not press the suit.

pp. 3–7

KPSC had meanwhile published the selection lists without selecting him. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal directed the State to appoint him, if otherwise suitable, against a direct-recruitment vacancy or by creating a supernumerary post, with appointment effective prospectively. The State challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

pp. 11–12, 17–18

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s order suffered from an error in its appreciation of the facts or application of law warranting interference under the High Court’s writ jurisdiction

p. 11 · ¶ 10

ii.Whether the State could invalidate the correction of Manjunath’s date of birth on the ground that it was made without a competent court’s decree, when a State official had made the correction during the pendency of his suit

pp. 12–18 · ¶ 12, 16

iii.Whether the State’s delay in challenging the Tribunal’s 2018 order was adequately explained

p. 24 · ¶ 24

03Law Applied

The Court considered the Department of Public Instruction circular dated 2 May 2000, which required a court decree for certain post-SSLC corrections to school records

p. 13 · ¶ 13

the Karnataka Government circular dated 20 August 2009, which relaxed that requirement for specified minor corrections

p. 14 · ¶ 14

It also referred to the 26 October 2015 circular, which set out procedures for corrections, but held that it did not govern the correction made in 2010

pp. 14–16 · ¶ 14–15

The Court applied the principles that the State cannot take advantage of its own wrong and that a party cannot approbate and reprobate

pp. 18–19 · ¶ 17–19

It also considered KPSC’s verification notice, which permitted proof of date of birth through an SSLC or equivalent marks card, transfer certificate, or extract of the cumulative record

pp. 20–23 · ¶ 21–22

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT, 1983 Section 11

04Reasoning

The Court found that Manjunath’s transfer certificate and cumulative record both showed his date of birth as 15 June 1982, and that KPSC’s notice allowed either document as proof of date of birth; KPSC therefore should not have relied solely on the discrepant SSLC card

pp. 22–23 · ¶ 22

The State’s own official corrected that card while Manjunath’s civil suit was pending, rendering the suit unnecessary to pursue. The State could not rely on the absence of a decree when its own action had brought the suit to an end, particularly when it did not dispute that the corrected date was accurate

pp. 16–18 · ¶ 16–17 · p. 23 · ¶ 23

The Court also rejected the State’s reliance on the COVID-19 lockdown to explain delay: more than a year had elapsed between the Tribunal’s order and the lockdown

p. 24 · ¶ 24