THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION N. 15649 of 2000 Dated: 25-11-2010 Between: S.V.Rama Raju …Petitioner And Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad. …Respondent. Oral order: Heard Sri B.G.Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Durga Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent. A Memo dated 28-2-2000 addressed by the respondent to the petitioner declining to alter the petitioner’s seniority in the list of Casual employees working with the respondent-University from 1-8-1989 instead of 21-4-1987 as claimed by the petitioner, is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner claims he was appointed as a casual labour with effect from 21-4-1987 at the Livestock Farm, Mahanandi, a unit under the administrative control of the Animal Husbandry department, in its Frozen Semen Bank, Nandyal. He claims to have continuously worked from 21-4-1987. The Livestock Farm of the Animal Husbandry was handed over to the respondent-University, it is claimed, in 1991- 92, along with the employees. Sometime later the respondent- University prepared a seniority list of casual labour, whereat the petitioner’s date of appointment was shown as 1-8-1989 instead of 21- 4-1987. The petitioner protested and sought an enquiry as to how this error crept in the date of his initial appointment as a casual labour. The petitioner also addressed representations to the Animal Husbandry department. In a series of equivocal communications, various officers of the Animal Husbandry department addressed the respondent-University about the petitioner’s service. In a letter dated 22-6-1999 by the Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry, incharge of the Frozen Semen Bank, Nandyal addressed to the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry it is stated that the petitioner worked as a casual labour from 21-4-1987 at Mahanandi Farm as per the Muster Roll. Whether he was in continuous service from 21-4-1987 and till the date of handing over of the Livestock unit to the respondent-University, this letter is silent about. On the basis of the above letter, the acting Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Kurnool addressed the Principal, Agricultural College of the respondent-University with an equally equivocal assertion that the petitioner worked as casual labour from 21-4-1987. On 13-7-1999 the Principal, Agricultural College addressed the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Kurnool intimating that when the Livestock Farm, Mahanandi was transferred from Animal Husbandry department to the respondent-University, the Animal Husbandry authorities had furnished the list of casual labour working at the Farm and their date of joining in the Farm, according to which the seniority list was prepared. According to the information furnished at that time, the petitioner’s date of joining as casual labour was 1-8-1989. On the basis of the information furnished, a committee of (2) Two Associate Professors and Farm Superintendent prepared the seniority list on 1-7-1995. This letter further states that the Joint Director by his letter dated 24-6-1999 (referred to supra) informed that the petitioner worked as a casual labour from 21-4-1987 at Mahanandi Farm. In the circumstances, the Principal, Agricultural College requested the Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Kurnool to inform how and why the date of joining of the petitioner as casual labour was earlier informed by the department to be 1-8-1989 and to furnish a certificate of ‘no break in service’ from 21-4-1987 to 1-8-1989 so as to enable the respondent- University to take further action in the matter. In response to the Agricultural College Principal’s letter dated 13-7-1999 the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Kurnool addressed a letter dated 16-9-1999 which reads as under: “With reference to your letter cited, I am to inform that after verifying the records i.e., Muster Roll and Aquittance etc., at F.S.B., Nandyal it is found that Sri S.V.Rama Raju, Casual Labour has worked from 21-4- 1987 at the erstwhile in G.L.F. Mahanandi now as Agriculture University, Mahanandi. The date shown as 1-8-1989 as the date of joining, by your Department previously, is by sheer clerical or typographic mistake, which may please be ignored as over sight mistake. I herewith certify that there is no break of service from 21-4-87 to 1-8-89. Hence I request to take the date of joining as 21-4- 87 as casual labour of Sri S.V.Rama Raju and to take necessary action in this regard.” In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent- University by its Registrar, it is clearly and categorically asserted that the petitioner’s seniority was fixed with effect from 1-8-1989 as casual labour taking his date of joining at the Livestock Farm, Mahanandi. This date was arrived at on the basis of the letter bearing No. 154/B/98, dated 1-2-2000 addressed by the Deputy Director, incharge of the Frozen Semen Bank, Nandyal, wherein the officer specifically stated that the petitioner entered service as a casual labour on 22-4-1987 and worked up to 30-4-1987 i.e., for (9 days). His name was not found in the Muster Roll and Acquittance Register from 1-5-1987 to 31-7-1989. From 1-8-1987 he again joined and attended the Farm as casual labour. Neither the petitioner produced a copy of the Acquittance Register or Muster Roll nor did the Animal Husbandry department furnish to the respondent-University any evidence or record, on the basis of which (inconsistent) assertions are made as to the date of the petitioner entering into service and being continuously in service as casual labour from 21-4-1987 or 1-8-1989, as the case may be. Since the certification is required to be furnished by the Animal Husbandry department, a department of the Government, normative principles of public governance require that when an information is furnished after a decade of an event, the information should be on the basis of records and not on the ipsi dixit of current public officer. The certification by any officer whether the Deputy Director or the Joint Director who has no personal knowledge of the service tenure of the petitioner, must be based on record. The vitality of the certification does not rest with the status of the officer who furnishes the certificate. It must be based on public records. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the certification of the Joint Director must prevail over an assertion of a Deputy Director (both of them were not present when the petitioner allegedly worked at the Frozen Semen Bank, Nandyal) merits no acceptance, since neither the current Deputy Director, Frozen Semen Bank, Nandyal nor the Joint Director, Kurnool assert to be personally aware of the petitioner’s service. Their assertions as to the date of inception and continuous service of petitioner as a casual labour in the Frozen Semen Bank, Nandyal must be based on record, otherwise these assertions have no value. From the counter-affidavit of the Registrar of the respondent- University, it is apparent that 1-8-1989 was recorded as the date of continuous casual service of the petitioner, on the basis of the information furnished by the officials of the Animal Husbandry department when the Livestock Farm was transferred from the Animal Husbandry department to the respondent-University. Any alteration of this date must therefore, be on the basis of the records. On the aforesaid analysis of the facts and the correspondence on record, this Court is unable to hazard any conclusion as to the date with effect from which the petitioner continuously put in service as a casual labour in the Livestock Farm, Mahanandi. If the petitioner has a subsisting grievance, he is at liberty to submit a fresh representation to the respondent-University duly enclosing any evidentiary material in support of his assertion. If the petitioner makes such a representation, the respondent-University shall consider the same and if the evidence marshaled by the petitioner in support of his assertion finds acceptance, the respondent may consider altering the date of the petitioner’s entry into service and continuous service for the purpose of reckoning or reviewing his seniority in the list of casual labour maintained by the respondent-University. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 25th November, 2010. GRR