IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10082 of 2008 Between: D. Venugopal S/o. Vejuji District. R/o. 9/265, Sriramulupeta Street, Proddatur Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Depot Manager, Mydukur Depot, Kadapa District. 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Proddatur, Kadapa District. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa, Kadapa District. 4 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents to correct date of birth of the petitioner as 01.07.1960 in their records thereby forcing the petitioner to premature retirement as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of A.P.S.R.T.C. Service Regulations and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.JSESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10082 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner joined as a Driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C. on 09.07.1986. His date of birth was entered as 01.07.1950 in the service record. On that basis, he is sought to be retired from service with effect from 31.07.2008. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents stating that his actual date of birth is 01.07.1960 and in the service record, it was wrongly mentioned as 01.07.1950. He attributed that to the translation of the date of birth from a certificate issued by an institution at Aurangabad, where he is said to have studied. The petitioner places reliance upon certain other documents also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client studied up to 6th Class in an institution at Aurangabad and the date of birth was entered as 01.07.1960 in Hindi; and while making necessary entries in the service record, it was wrongly mentioned as 01.07.1950. He further submits that in some of the records, the date of birth was mentioned as 01.07.1960, and though there is ample proof to the effect that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1960, no action has been taken thereon. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner, who belongs to B.C., was appointed on 09.07.1986 and at that time, since he did not submit any proof of date of birth, he was subjected to medical examination, wherein the age was certified as 36 years and relaxation to the extent of 6 years was given. It is not in dispute that the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned in the service record as 01.07.1950. The petitioner did not submit any certificates of educational qualification or of date of birth at the time of his entry into the service. That obviously necessitated the examination by Medical Board to assess the age. It was only at a later stage, that the petitioner came forward with some certificates. Even assuming that the figures in the said certificates are different, they cannot constitute the basis for alternation of the date of birth in the service record. It is well settled that the request of an employee to make alteration in the date of birth at the fag end of service cannot be entertained. Further, the material relied upon by the petitioner itself is not consistent. While in the Study Certificate, the date of birth was mentioned as 01.07.1960, in the Driving Licence, it is shown as 01.02.1960. One clinching factor in this case is that the petitioner was extended the relaxation to the extent of six years at the time of appointment itself, on his being found to be of 36 years old. At this length of time, the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 02.05.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10082 of 2008 Date:02.05.2008 JSU