HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14248 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of the Andhra University way back in July, 1976 as Field Work Supervisor, which is said to be equivalent to the post of Lecturer. Petitioner, thereafter, earned promotions and became Professor. Even before joining the service of the University, he filed O.S. No. 28 of 1976 in the Court of the II Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam for a declaration that his date of birth be mentioned as 10.9.1951 instead of 10.8.1950. The Suit was decreed on 11.3.1976. Petitioner states that despite the decree, his date of birth was mentioned in his records as 10.8.1950 and on a representation made by him, the Vice Chancellor passed an order dated 2.7.1984 directing that the date of birth of the petitioner be entered as 10.8.1950 in the University records. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he would attain the age of superannuation on 30.9.2011, he is sought to be retired from service on 30.8.2010 on the basis of his date of birth recorded as 10.8.1950. He submits that the decree passed by the Civil Court against the respondent-University has become final and there is absolutely no basis for the respondents to retire him before attaining the age of superannuation. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 10.8.1950 in the application form, on the basis of the entry in the S.S.L.C. record and the same was reflected in the service records also. According to him, the decree, at the most would have effect upon all other records, such as, the degree certificates issued by the University etc., and it shall not have any bearing upon any entry in the service records. Heard Sri S. Subbareddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.V. Rajam, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 10.8.1950 in his application form. It is ununderstandable, as to on what basis the petitioner filed the suit against the University even before he joined its service. The suit was absolutely without any cause of action. At any rate, in case, the petitioner wanted that his date of birth be treated as 10.9.1951, the only thing expected from him was to initiate proceedings before the Board of Secondary Education or to file a suit against it. It is settled principle of law that the date of birth entered in the S.S.LC./H.S.C./Multi-purpose Certificates, as the case may be, shall constitute the basis for determining the age of any employee. In case the date of birth entered in such certificates is not correct, either suit has to be filed or proceedings have to be initiated. It is only when the entries in such certificates are correct that the consequential steps can be taken by the employer or other agencies, as the case may be. In the instant case, the petitioner studied Multi Purpose Course in Higher Secondary School, Nidadavole. A Certificate in the form of a book was issued to him. His date of birth was initially mentioned as 10.8.1950 and the same was changed by the Head Master as 10.9.1951. There is no dispute about the said entry. Therefore, the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the relevant record is 10.8.1950 and that is the one mentioned by the petitioner in his application. As long as the entry in the Certificate remains intact, the petitioner cannot insist on the alteration of the same either in the service records or in any subsequent records. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J DATE: 26th October, 2010 pnb