THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.1216 of 2011 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The first respondent joined service on 07.03.1990 as Deputy Tahsildar. Stating that her date of birth was wrongly entered in the school records, she made an application to the third petitioner-District Collector on 03.09.1990, seeking to correct her date of birth as 11.11.1955 instead of 11.11.1953 as per the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of date of birth) Rules, 1984 (for short ‘the Rules’). After enquiry, the third petitioner issued proceedings dated 23.09.1991, stating that the date of birth of the first respondent be entered in the service register as 11.11.1955. It is stated that after a lapse of 17 years, the Government issued memo dated 23.10.2007, stating that the date of birth once entered in the service register would be corrected only by the Government, but not the Collector, who had no jurisdiction, and consequently, the third petitioner issued a show cause notice dated 31.12.2007, proposing to cancel her altered date of birth in the service register. Challenging the said memo and the show cause notice, she filed O.A.No.2170 of 2008 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Through order dated 27.10.2010, the Tribunal having held that the date of birth entered in the service register as 11.11.1955 as per the proceedings of the third petitioner dated 23.09.1991 under Rule 2 of the Rules, is valid and there is no valid reason to cancel the same, allowed the O.A by setting aside the memo and the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 2. The first respondent filed counter and additional counter stating that even though the Tribunal allowed the O.A. in her favour, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.124, dated 29.01.2011, mentioning the list of Officers including her name with the dates of superannuation mentioned against their names and her name was shown at Sl.No.11 mentioning her date of birth as 11.11.1953 notwithstanding the entry made in the service register as 11.11.1955. It is stated that her elder sister by name Parvathi, who was born on 16.09.1953, died on 13.12.1954 and after conducting a detailed enquiry as per the Rules, the third petitioner issued proceedings dated 23.09.1991 stating that her date of birth is 11.11.1955 and accordingly, made an endorsement to that effect in her service register. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that the first respondent in her own application in Group-II Services had mentioned her death of birth as 11.11.1953 and when she joined service on 19.03.1990 also, she gave a declaration that her date of birth as 11.11.1953 and the same was also supported by all her Educational Qualification Certificates issued by the Board of Secondary Education and other Educational Institutions/Universities. He further contended that as the third petitioner has no jurisdiction to pass an order for alteration of date of birth in the service register, the first petitioner issued the said memo and the consequential show cause notice to the first respondent. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration her SSC Certificate and other educational qualifications. Learned Government Pleader further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the date of birth of the first respondent as entered in the service register was absolutely under Rule 2 of the Rules and it is final and the Government employee is estopped from disputing the correctness of it. He also contended that when the date of birth on the basis of the school records is entered in the service register, it cannot be altered and the Government has the sole authority to correct the date of birth, but not the Collector. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the entry made in the service register at the earliest point of time is without conducting any enquiry and that after a detailed enquiry only, the third petitioner ordered that her date of birth be altered as 11.11.1955 in stead of 11.11.1953 and entered the same in her service records. He further contended that though the orders of the Tribunal are in force, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.124 dated 29.01.2001, wherein her date of birth was mentioned is 11.11.1953 instead of 11.11.1955 as per her service register. 6. Initially, the date of birth of the first respondent was entered in her service register as 11.11.1953. In the order impugned the Tribunal held that the said entry was not made either on her declaration or after an enquiry under sub-rule (1)(2) or (3) of Rule 2 of the Rules and as such, the said entry was not made under Rule 2 of the Rules. The third petitioner after conducting an enquiry in accordance with the Rules, issued proceedings dated 23.09.1991, ordering to enter her date of birth as 11.11.1955 in her service register. The petitioners never challenged the said proceedings, but after a lapse of 17 years, they issued the memo and the consequential show cause notice without assigning any reasons. 7. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J Date:12.07.2011 sj