IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11720 of 2011 Date:01.07.2011 Between: S. Venkateswarlu .....Petitioner AND The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Moosheerabad, Hyderabad and 2 others. ....Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11720 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the proceedings dated 01.02.2011 of the 3rd respondent as illegal and contrary to date of birth entered in the records of the Corporation and consequentially to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by taking into consideration the date of birth as 17.10.1957 instead of 12.07.1953 and to grant all consequential benefits to him. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondent corporation on 01.08.1987 and discharging his duties without any remark whatsoever. At the time of entry into service as he did not possess any educational qualifications, the Medical Officer of the respondent corporation on examination issued a certificate declaring his age and date of birth as 17.10.1957. The date of birth has been incorporated in the service records of the petitioner as 17.10.1957 by the respondent corporation. The certificate issued by the 3rd respondent dated 09.03.1993 clearly states that the date is based on record as 17.10.1957. It is stated that the date of birth of the petitioner shown in records is carried to Provident Fund scheme and APSRTET & CC Scheme also. Even in the Driving Licence also, it is mentioned as 17.10.1957. However, contrary to the date entered in the record, now the respondents proposed to retire the petitioner from service by taking his date of birth as 12.07.1953 instead of 17.10.1957 without any basis. The change of date of birth without notice nor giving any opportunity is untenable and hence this writ petition is filed. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the writ petition and stated that the contention of the petitioner in paragraph B of the grounds that once the date of birth is entered in the service register which binds the corporation, no alteration of date is permissible and hence the action of respondents is untenable in law is devoid of merits. The further contention that the certificate issued by the authority dated 09.03.1993 is ignored and deliberately passed orders is denied and submitted that the petitioner at the time of joining the service gave a declaration that his date of birth is 12.07.1953. But the petitioner was unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of his age, therefore in the medical examination, after his selection to the corporation, the medical officer has assessed his age as 29 years as on 17.10.1986. Hence, the petitioner’s date of birth was initially fixed as 17.10.1957. As the age of the petitioner as per the date of birth declared by him is more than that of the age declared by the Medical Officer at the time of appointment and in terms of the circular No.PD-29/2001 dated 11.04.2001 if the age so assessed or the age as declared by the person, whichever is more, shall be accepted as final and the employee shall be assumed to have completed that age on the date of attestation by the Medical Officer. Therefore, in view of the circular mentioned above the date of birth of the petitioner should have been fixed as 12.07.1953 instead of 17.10.1957. It is further submitted that as per Regulation 19(2)(b) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations 1964 “where the person concerned unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of his age, it should be assessed by a Medical Officer of the corporation and the age so assessed or the age as declared by the person, whichever is more, shall be accepted as final and the employee shall be assumed to have completed that age on the date of attestation by the Medical Officer”. In terms of the provisions of Regulation 19(2)(b) of the Service Regulations the VC & MD has accorded permission to cause alteration of date of birth in the Service Records of the petitioner as 12.07.1953 instead of 17.10.1957. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the date of birth as mentioned in the service register of the petitioner has been altered without there being any notice to the petitioner and in the service register, the date of birth of the petitioner is noted as 17.10.1957 and therefore, the arbitrary action of the respondents have to be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner himself gave declaration that his date of birth is 12.07.1953 at the time of his joining into service, but as the petitioner was unable to furnish the proof to show that his date of birth as 12.07.1953, he was referred to the Medical Officer of the corporation for ascertaining his age and the Medical Officer assessed his age as 29 years, that therefore, whichever is more has to be taken into consideration and hence the impugned order needs no interference. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioner joined in the respondents corporation as a Driver and at the time of his joining into service, he gave a declaration stating that his date of birth is 12.07.1953. But, as the petitioner was unable to furnish the specific proof with regard to his age, he was referred to the Medical Officer of the corporation for ascertaining the age of the petitioner and the Medical Officer of the corporation has assessed the age of the petitioner as 29 years as on 17.10.1986. Therefore, provisionally the date of birth of the petitioner was fixed as 17.10.1957 in the registers. The change of date of birth of the petitioner was notified to the petitioner through the office order and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner on 30.08.2010. Whether there are any regulations which empowers the corporation to alter the date of birth of the petitioner without giving notice to the petitioner. Regulation 19(2)(b) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations 1964 which reads as follows: “Where the person concerned unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of his age, it should be assessed by a Medical Officer of the corporation and the age so assessed or the age as declared by the person, whichever is more, shall be accepted as final and the employee shall be assumed to have completed that age on the date of attestation by the Medical Officer”. Therefore, the above provision does not require any contemplation giving any issuance of notice to the petitioner. In terms of the said regulations, the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the respondents corporation accorded permission to the respondents to cause alteration of date of birth of the petitioner in his service register as 12.07.1953 instead of 17.10.1957. Therefore, the alteration of date of birth of the petitioner is made in accordance with the regulations. More over, when the petitioner himself gave a declaration at the time of his joining into service of the respondent corporation as Driver and that has been accepted in pursuance of the regulations, the impugned order needs no interference. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU,J. Date:01.07.2011 Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11720 of 2011 Date: 01.07.2011