THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.20979 OF 2002 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) to alter the date of birth of petitioner as 10.10.1965 based on the school records of the petitioner and in accordance with Regulation 19(1) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 (for short ‘the Regulations’) in the service register and in other service records and; further declare the order of the 1st respondent – Vice –Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerbad, Hyderabad dated 14.2.1995 refusing to alter the same, without any opportunity to the petitioner to make his submissions and without even subjecting the petitioner to medical examination by scientiﬁc method and without considering the date of birth as per school records, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. 3. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on 18.3.1980 on daily wages of Rs.6-30 ps. per day in the oﬃce of the Depot Manager, Warangal. On 19.12.1985 the petitioner was appointed as Temporary Sweeper with eﬀect from 31.10.1985 and later he was re-categorized as Cleaner on 1.12.1988. At the time of the de-casualization, the petitioner was sent to APSRTC Hospital at Tarnaka, Hyderabad for medical examination in the year 1985. At that time, the Superintendent of the said hospital, assessed the age of the petitioner as 35 years as on 20.8.1985 without any scientiﬁc examination and just by looking at his the personality. Based on the said assessment of age, the respondent – Corporation entered the date of the birth of the petitioner in the service book as 20.8.1950. It is further stated that as a matter of fact, the petitioner was born on 10.10.1965 and he studied in Pragathi Primary and High School, Hanamakonda, which is recognized by the Government, up to 3rd class during the year 1975-76 and in the school records also, the date of the birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 10.10.1965. After realizing the mistake with regard to date of birth in the year 1989, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent – The Depot Manager, Warangal Depot-II, Warangal. The respondents wrote a letter to the said school authorities and the Head Master of the School wrote a letter on 13.7.1990 conﬁrming that the petitioner studied in their school. As the respondents are not taking any action, the petitioner ﬁled writ petition in W.P.No.11933/1994 on the ﬁle of this court and by order dated 16.8.1994 the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders based on the material available for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. On 14.2.1995, the 1st respondent - Vice – Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerbad, Hyderabad passed orders rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that as per the school records, if the age of the petitioner is accepted, his age as on the date of initial appointment would be only 14 years and 10 months and that the Corporation would not engage the minors and hence his representation was rejected. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that no opportunity was given before passing the order dated 14.2.1995. As per Regulation 19(1) of the Regulations, the date of birth as recorded in the school or college certiﬁcate shall be adopted without any modiﬁcation and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that the date of birth as mentioned in the school register shall be accepted. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the Superintendent of the APSRTC, Hospital at Tarnaka assessed his age by physical veriﬁcation and without any scientiﬁc examination. The petitioner himself subjected to the medical examination by Dr.M.Ravinder Reddy, Professor, Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad and based on physical and dental examination by scientiﬁc methods, he opined that the petitioner is aged 35 years as on the date of the examination on 13.9.2000 and issued the certiﬁcate. It is stated that the age assessed by Dr.M.Ravinder Reddy, is correlating to the age of the petitioner as stated in his school records. Therefore, with these averments, the petitioner is seeking to correct his date of birth in his service book as 10.10.1965 instead of 20.8.1950. 5. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the respondents – Corporation. It is stated that the impugned order is dated 14.2.1997 and the present writ petition is ﬁled in the year 2002 and, therefore, on the ground of latches itself, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is further stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as casual Sweeper with eﬀect from 21.8.1980 in the office of the 2nd respondent and at that time, the petitioner did not produce any certiﬁcate in proof of his age. On de-casualization, the petitioner was sent for medical examination, to ascertain the age of petitioner and the Superintendent, APSRTC Tarnaka, Hospital, Hyderabad vide M.C.No.29066 dated 20.8.1985 assessed the age of the petitioner as 35 years as on 20.8.1950 and accordingly the date of birth of the petitioner is ﬁxed as 20.8.1950 as per Regulation 19(2) of the Regulations. As per the directions of this court in W.P.No.11933/1994, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner based on the material available on record and rejected the same by the impugned order dated 14.2.1995. It is stated that the petitioner did not produce any certiﬁcate at the time of initial engagement and de- casualization and therefore, the respondents after careful consideration of the matter together with medical certiﬁcate and following the Regulations, ﬁxed the age of the petitioner. It is further stated that if the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 10.10.1965, then by the time of initial engagement i.e., on 21.8.1980, he would be less than ﬁfteen years. The respondents, does not appoint any person who have not completed eighteen years of age. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is false and cannot be considered and, therefore, by the impugned order, his case was rejected. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 6. The petitioner also ﬁled reply and denied the averments made in the counter aﬃdavit and reiterated the averments made in the writ affidavit. 7. The dispute in the present writ petition is with regard to date of birth of the petitioner. As per the case of the petitioner, his date of birth as per his school records is 10.10.1965 and on the other hand, the case of the respondents – Corporation is that, since the petitioner did not produce any record at the time of appointed, he was subjected to medical examination and as per the medical assessment, the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.08.1950. In order to resolve this issue, it is necessary to consider the case of the respective parties in the light of the proceedings of the respondent – Corporation. 8. From the above material on record, it could be seen that the petitioner was initially appointed as water boy on 18.3.1980 on daily wage basis. It is to be noticed that at the time, the respondents appear to have not insisted for any proof with regard to the age of the petitioner. On 19.12.1985 he was appointed as temporary sweeper with eﬀect from 31.10.1985 and later, on 1.12.1988 he was re-categorised as cleaner and at that time, he was sent to the APSRTC Hospital at Tarnaka Hyderabad for medical examination and the Superintendent of the said Hospital, assessed the age of the petitioner as 35 years as on 20.8.1985. The case of the petitioner is that he was subjected to medical exmination to ﬁnd out his health condition and not for assessment of age. On the other hand, the case of the respondent – Corporation is that the petitioner was subjected to medical examination both for physical ﬁtness and for assessment of age. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner was subjected to medical examination only for assessment of age and there is also no material to show that the age of the petitioner was assessed on scientific method. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the case of the petitioner and the subsequent proceedings issued by the Corporation. 9. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was subjected to medical examination to ﬁnd out the physical ﬁtness to hold the post and not for assessment of the age. The further case of the petitioner is that after realizing that his date of birth was wrongly entered in the service book in the year 1989, immediately he made a representation and as no action was taken, he ﬁled writ petition before this court in W.P.11933/1994. This court by order dated 16.8.1994 passed the order as under: “According to the writ petition his actual date of birth is 10 th October, 1965, whereas according to the respondent – Corporation the date of birth of the petitioner is 20th August, 1950. Thus there is a controversy with regard to the actual date of birth of the petitioner. It is averred in the writ petition that to resolve this controversy, the Corporation itself ordered an enquiry by appointing the Security Oﬃcer of APSRTC. It is also averred in the writ petition that the said oﬃcer has already submitted a report to the Corporation. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Corporation is not taking decision on the report submitted by the Security Officer. In the circumstances, I think that it is just and necessary to direct the ﬁrst respondent to take decision on the representation made by the petitioner on the basis of the material collected by it and communicate the decision within a specified time. This writ petition is allowed in part. The ﬁrst respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner to correct his date of birth on the basis of the material collected by the Corporation and made available by the petitioner and communicate the decision to the petitioner on or before the end of October, 1994.” 10. From the above order, it could be seen that the respondent – Corporation has appointed Security Oﬃcer to enquire the matter and he had already submitted a report and the grievance of the petitioner is that no decision is taken on the report submitted by the Security Oﬃcer. Further this court also directed the respondent – Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner to correct his date of birth on the basis of the material collected by the Corporation and also made available by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. 11. Initially at the time of appointment of the petitioner as Water Boy on daily wages, the Corporation appears to have not taken any steps to verify his age. Under proceedings NO.E2/232(23)/88-DVM-WL dated 1.12.1988 issued by the oﬃce of the Divisional Manager, Warangal Division, recategorization of Sweepers as Cleaners was made and the petitioner was shown at Sr.No.4 and he was found medically ﬁt vide medical certiﬁcate No.30730 dated 31.8.1988. The petitioner mainly relying on the study certiﬁcate issued by the Head Master of the Pragathi Primay and High School, where under his date of birth is shown as 10.10.1965. As per 19(1) of the Regulations, the date of birth as recorded in a school or college certiﬁcate shall be adopted without any modification. Further pursuant to the letter addressed by the Corporation, the Head Master of the school by letter dated 13.7.1990 had conﬁrmed the study of the petitioner is their school. In the present case, for discarding the said study certiﬁcate, the respondent – Corporation is mainly relying on the logic that as the petitioner was appointed on 21.08.1980 and that if his age is taken as per the study certiﬁcate, as 10.10.1965, he would be only about 15 years and that the Corporation would not engage minors into service. It is to be noticed that to come to this conclusion, the Corporation appears to have not made any veriﬁcation of the records and it is trying to justify its stand based on the dates and as noted above, this is not based on record. Therefore, for this reason, the Senior Manager (Personnel), KKTR; Karimnagar addressed letter to the Divisional Manager of the Warangal Depot dated 28.6.1981 in proceedings No.G1/502(3)/88- RM:KR, to arrange for an investigation into the matter and inform the circumstances under which the petitioner was initially engaged on casual basis on 21.8.1980 when his age was only 14 years and 10 months taking into consideration the date of birth as shown in the school certiﬁcate submitted by the party and certiﬁed as genuine by the security oﬃcer, Karimnagar to apprise the same to Regional Manager, Karimnagar and send reply to Head oﬃce. The relevant portion of the order dated 28.6.1991 is extracted as under: “Please refer to the letter cited. IN this connection it is to submit that Sri G.Sambaiah, has worked as a ‘Casual’ in warangal division and as per circular No.PD62/85, he was decasualised as sweeper by the Selection Committee vide proceedings No.p4/502(7)/85-RM:KR, dt.3-7-1985. The Chief Manager (Personnel), Hyderabad has informed this oﬃce if the date as shown in the school certiﬁcate is to be accepted the age of the party as on the date of his engagement on casual basis i.e., on 21.08.1980 will be only 14 yeas 10 months and which is not possible. Therefore, you are requested to arrange to investigate into the mater and informed this oﬃce the circumstances under which Sri G.Sambaiah, E.302128, Sweeper was initially engaged on casual basis on 21-08-1980 when his age was only 14 yeas and 10 months taking into consideration the date of birth as shown in the school certiﬁcate submitted by the party and certiﬁed as genuine by the security oﬃcer, Karimnagar to apprise the same to Regional Manager, Karimnagar and send reply to Head Office.” From the above letter dated 28.6.1991, it could be seen that the Security Oﬃcer has certiﬁed the certiﬁcate produced by the petitioner as genuine. In the impugned order, there is no reference with regard to the report of the Security Oﬃcer, who certiﬁed that the certiﬁcate produced by the petitioner as genuine one and there is also no reference to the investigation directed to be conducted by the Senior Manager vide letter dated 28.6.1991. In the earlier writ petition the petitioner has categorically averred that the Corporation is not taking any decision on the report submitted by the Security Oﬃcer. The petitioner further averred that he got himself subjected to medical examination for assessment of age before one Dr.M.Ravinder Reddy, Professor, Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad on 29.9.2000 and on scientiﬁc examination of the petitioner, he opined that the petitioner was aged 35 years by the date of his examination on 13.9.2000 and the case of the petitioner is that the same is co-relating to the age in the study certiﬁcate produced by him and which is certiﬁed to be genuine by the Security Officer of the Corporation. 12. As already noted above, this court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.11933/1994 dated 16.8.1994 directed the respondent – Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner to correct his date of birth on the basis of the material collected by the corporation and made available by the petitioner. The above noted facts are not considered in the impugned order and no acceptable reasons are assigned by rejecting the case of the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order is passed without considering the material on record and in a routine manner without application of mind and opposed to the spirit of the order passed by this court in W.P.No.11933/1994 dated 16.8.1994, which cannot be sustained. Hence, for this reason, the same is liable to be set aside and for the very same, the delay cannot be taken to reject the claim of the petitioner. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent – Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerbad, Hyderabad to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh, based on the entire material available on record and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ----------------------------------- 13—08—2008