THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.802 OF 2005 DATED 10th DECEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN: M.Venkat Reddy … Petitioner A n d The Deepot Manager, APSRTC, Manthani, Karimnagar District, and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.802 OF 2005 O R D E R This writ petition is filed by a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) challenging the proceedings dated 01.08.2004, whereby he was put on notice that he would retire from service on 31.01.2005, and the subsequent proceedings dated 17.11.2004 rejecting his request for altering his date of birth. He sought a consequential direction to the APSRTC to alter his date of birth in the service records from 15.01.1947 to 20.01.1951 and continue him in service treating his date of birth as 20.01.1951. This Court, in the first instance, by order dated 27.01.2005 granted interim orders to continue the petitioner in service till the date of his superannuation treating his date of birth as 20.01.1951. However, the said order was vacated by the subsequent order dated 25.08.2005, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had approached the Court at the fag end of his career seeking alteration of his date of birth. In the Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the vacating of the interim order, a Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere in the matter. It is relevant to note that the APSRTC, in its counter filed in support of the vacate stay petition, stated that the petitioner would have been ineligible for appointment as a Conductor had his date of birth been taken to be 20.01.1951. The petitioner did not choose to refute this statement by filing a reply. Further, the facts aforestated clearly establish that the petitioner did not choose to agitate for alteration of his date of birth in the service records of the APSRTC till he received intimation of his impending retirement from service. This Court has consistently frowned upon attempts by employees towards the fag end of their career to seek such alteration of date of birth so as to prolong their services. This case does not stand on a different footing. As the petitioner was relieved from service long ago treating his date of birth as in 1947 and keeping in mind the fact that he would not even have been eligible for appointment taking his alleged correct date of birth into account, no case is made out warranting interference at this stage. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 10th DECEMBER, 2009 PGS