IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9301 of 2008 Between: Guntupalli Venkatramaiah S/o Guntupalli Narayana, R/o Pulicherla Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief General manager, Telecom, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The General Manager, Tirupathi Telecom] District, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....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 issue a Writ Order, or direction especially one in the nature of Writof mandamus declaring the proceedings issued in Lr. No. E/TMS/Gen.CORR/2005/111, date 26-11-2007 wherein the request of the petitioner for correction of the Date of Birth is rejected is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and set a side the same consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Request of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth from 1-7-1948 to 24-12-1953 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent No.: A.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR BSNL) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9301 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of the then Telecom Department in the year 1972 and thereafter, earned promotions. His date of birth was entered as 01.07.1948, in the service records. Recently, he made a representation to the respondents, stating that his date of birth is 24.12.1953, and made a request to correct the same. He placed reliance upon the birth certificate, dated 30.11.2006, said to have been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pulicherla. The respondents rejected the request of the petitioner, on the ground that the claim is belated and time barred. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Time and again, the hon’ble Supreme Court held that the claims made, at the fag end of service, as to alternation of date of birth, cannot be entertained. The petitioner was very much aware of the date of the birth entered in the service record and he remained silent for the past quarter of a century. It is only at the fag end of his service, he came forward with the request. On the face of it, the claim of the petitioner is belated and cannot be accepted. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 25.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9301 of 2008 Date: 25.04.2008 JSU