IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5205 of 2008 Between: G.Koteshwara Rao S/o. Late Kanakaiah K.T.P.S. Palvoncha, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Engineer, O & M K.T.P.S. Palvoncha District Khammam. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Adms/KTPS, Palvoncha, District Khammam. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider petitioner's explanation dt. 20-4-2007 in Pursuance to the Memo No. CE/O&M/KTPS/AMD/B2/D.No. 77/07 dt. 3-4-07 issued by 1st respondent and treat the date of birth of the petitioner as per the school records and certificates i.e. 4-5-1955. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.L.PANDU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner joined the services of erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board in the year 1975. His date of birth was mentioned as 04.05.1951. Vide Memo, dated 03.04.2007, the first respondent required the petitioner to explain as to why the date of birth shall not be corrected as 01.07.1950. The petitioner, in turn, submitted his explanation on 20.04.2007. Apart from objecting to the proposed correction, the petitioner requested the first respondent to correct his date of birth as 04.05.1955 on the basis of a certificate obtained from the school. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 20.04.2007. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. A typical situation is found in this writ petition. While the first respondent did not cite any provision of law in proposing to correct the date of birth of the petitioner and issued a Memo, the latter appears to have availed this opportunity to request the first respondent to alter the date of birth, to his advantage. This Court would have an occasion to deal with the legality of these steps only when an order emerges from the first respondent. As of now, the writ petition is premature. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the remedies after the first respondent passes an order in pursuance of the Memo, dated 03.04.2007, issued by him. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ 13.03.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}