HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.648 of 2011 Date: October 31, 2011 Between: Dr. K. Eshwar Goud, Retd. Professor & Head of Department, Gandhi Hospital/Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad. … Appellant And 1. The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Government of A.P., Hyderabad & 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.648 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The reversing judgment dated 14.9.2009 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, Medak District, in A.S. No.13 of 2008, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2006 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayankhed, in O.S. No.48 of 2004, is under appeal. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. 2. Parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial court. 3. The suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff’s date of birth was entered erroneously as 02.01.1947 and to direct the defendants in the suit to alter the same in the concerned certificates, Service Book etc., by entering the proper and correct date of birth of the plaintiff, 03.02.1950. The suit was instituted on 29.6.2004 i.e., a mere seven months prior to the retirement of the plaintiff from service. It is not in dispute that he was retired from service on 31.01.2005 treating his date of birth as 02.01.1947. 4. Pertinent to note, the first and second defendants in the suit, viz., the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, Hyderabad, were set ex parte and only the third defendant in the suit, the Director of Medical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, entered appearance and filed a written statement contesting the suit claim. Upon filing of this written statement, the plaintiff withdrew the suit against the third defendant. In effect, there was no contest to the plaintiff’s claim thereafter. The trial court, by its judgment and decree dated 28.4.2006, held in favour of the plaintiff and directed the first and second defendants in the suit to alter his date of birth as 03.02.1950 in the concerned certificates, Service Book etc. When the plaintiff sought extension of his service basing on this judgment and decree and addressed the second defendant, the same came to the notice of the third defendant in the suit. The third defendant thereupon filed the appeal in A.S. No.13 of 2008 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad. By judgment and decree dated 14.9.2009, the lower appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment. 5. Perusal of the lower appellate court’s judgment reflects that the legal position obtaining under the relevant rules in the context of effecting alteration of date of birth of Government employees was taken into account. The lower appellate court also considered the case law on this subject, which indicated that courts generally deprecated the practice of employees seeking alteration of their date of birth at the fag-end of their career with the intention of prolonging their services. Based on these factors, the lower appellate court held against the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. 6. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is that the third defendant in the suit, against whom the suit had already been withdrawn, was not an aggrieved party whereby he could maintain an appeal against the judgment and decree in the suit. It is however not in dispute that the plaintiff was employed by the Department of Medical Education and in that status he was promoted as the Professor and Head of the Urology Department in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Thus, the third defendant in the suit was no other than the plaintiff’s employer. By no stretch of imagination could it be stated that the third defendant was a disinterested party to the proceedings. It appears that the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit against the third defendant after filing of his written statement only with the intention of securing an order behind his back. This court is therefore not impressed with the contention urged by the learned counsel in this regard. 7. The facts of the case clearly establish that the plaintiff, having put in nearly three decades of service, suddenly woke up to the fact that his date of birth needed alteration just seven months prior to his retirement. He did not dispute the fact that his education and service records throughout reflected his date of birth as 02.01.1947. So much so, there is also a Gazette Notification issued in the year 1978 showing his date of birth as such. Being an educated man, it is hardly believable that the plaintiff was not conscious of what was required to be done if the said date of birth was erroneous. To compound matters further, the plaint filed in support of the suit does not even reflect any tangible evidence in support of the plaintiff’s claim that his date of birth is not 02.01.1947 but 03.02.1950. 8. On the above analysis, it is clear that this appeal turns purely on facts and no question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration. The judgment of the lower appellate court brooks no interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. 9. The second appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. S.A.M.P. No.1476 of 2011 shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: October 31, 2011. BSB