IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27210 OF 2010 Between: O. Ranga Lakshmi ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27210 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent corporation on 14.02.1984. Subsequently, her services were regularized from 05.11.1986. Her date of birth was mentioned in the Service Register as 15.06.1957. The petitioner was issued a memo on 27.05.2009 alleging that her date of birth in the Service Register was tampered and she was required to submit the proof of her date of birth. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 16.06.2009, stating that from the beginning, her date of birth was only 15.06.1957 and there was no material to indicate that it was in the result of any alteration. Not satisfied with that, the 2nd respondent passed the order, dated 18.06.2010, directing conditional retirement of the petitioner with effect from 30.06.2010. The petitioner submits that except making a vague and general allegation, the respondents did not indicate the basis for their action and subsequent to her retirement, she filed Certificates obtained from the office of Tahsildhar, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District, and Z.P. High School, Sanjeevaraopeta, Prakasam District, which discloses her date of birth as 15.06.1957. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner did not come forward with the proof of her date of birth in response to the memo, dated 27.05.2009. The petitioner was issued the memo abruptly in the year 2009, alleging that her date of birth in the record was tampered. The only basis was the comparison between the entry made in the Service Register on the one hand, and the Seniority List on the other hand. It was not even alleged that there was any event of complaint from any one as to the genuinity of the entry. Obviously, because the petitioner was taken by surprise, she was not in possession of any valid material. The petitioner was no doubt retired from service. However, it is felt that, in the event of any proof of date of birth of the petitioner coming forthnow, the respondents can revise the decision. Now that the petitioner has filed the Certificates obtained from the Tahsildhar and High School, the respondents can verify the authenticity of the same and pass appropriate orders. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall take into account the representation made by the petitioner together with the Certificates filed by her and in case, it emerges that the said Certificates are true and genuine, they shall reinstate the petitioner into service and continue her till she attains the age of superannuation, as per the revised entries. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 03, 2011 MD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27210 OF 2010 August 03, 2011 MD