State of Karnataka vs Rajeev Shetty, K.

The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 54 of 1973 in the Court of the Munsiff at Coondapur, South Kanara, praying for a declaration that his date of birth was 19-1-1927 with the consequential relief that his S.S.L.C. certificate and the service register should be altered. The respondent at the time of the suit was in the service of the State in the Judicial Department His suit came to be dismissed. But, however, respondent-plaintiff filed R.A. No. 87 of 73 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Udupi. The appeal came to be allowed. Aggrieved by the lower appellate Court''s order, the State has preferred this second appeal. While the litigation was in progress (after the Judgment of the lower appelate court was delivered) the Karnataka Civil Services (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 was passed by the State Legislature and came into force on 15th June 1974. Under S. 5 of the aforementioned Act the respondent approached the High Court on the administrative side for determination of the age in accordance with the provisions of the Act. That application came to be decided against the respondent-plaintiff. He did not seek further remedy against such determination made under the 1974 Act.

It is also submitted by the Counsel for respondent that respondent-plaintiff bag since retired from service in accordance with the original date of birth entered in his service register.

Having regard to the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 3 of the Act, the lower Appellate Court''s decree not having become final, the jurisdiction of this Court to proceed with the appeal ceased in terms of S. 6 of the Act Even the respondent plaintiff practically abandoned his rights under the decree and sought for determination of the age under the provisions of the Act. The adverse finding recorded in that proceeding was not challenged by him. In other words, he accepted the finding.

Therefore, it has become unnecessary to dispose of this appeal on merits for the reasons stated by me above the appeal is disposed of as having become redundant but there will be no order as to costs.