IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 2032 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP No : 13253 of 1993 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A.No.2032 of 2001 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T .Meena Kumari) The present Writ Appeal is ﬁled against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13253 of 1993, dated 18.10.2001. The appellant herein is the petitioner and the respondents are the Zonal Manager, Bank of India and the Director of School Education, Government of Andrha Pradesh. The Writ Petition was ﬁled seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as per the decree in O.S.No.660 of 1984 dated 28.06.1985, with all consequential beneﬁts as his date of birth is 10.05.1961, and consequential order declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the application of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth and the order of the 2nd respondent in L.Dis.No.209/H3/85, dated 22.07.1993 as illegal. The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the Indian Bank as a Clerk in August, 1981. According to him, he could ﬁnd out that his date of birth is 10.05.1961, but not 15.03.1959 and as such, he ﬁled O.S.No.660 of 1984, on the ﬁle of the Court of the I Additional District Munsif, Ongole, seeking a declaration to the above eﬀect that his date of birth is 10.05.1961 and not 15.03.1959. After complying with the formality of issuing notice under Section 80 C.P.C., the suit was decreed by the Court below, by judgment and decree dated 28.06.1985, declaring the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.05.1961. Thereafter, he made an application to the 2 nd respondent for correction of his date of birth, but the same was rejected by virtue of the proceedings in L.Dis.No.209/H3/85, dated 22.07.1993, on the ground that the said decree will not bind the Government as well as the Department as no relief was sought for against any of the defendants in the suit for carrying out correction of the date of birth in any of the records. Assailing the said proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge has gone into merits of the case and, having found that the only issue framed by the Court below is, “Whether the plaintiﬀ is entitled for declaration as prayed for”, observed that the civil Court held that there is no prayer for the relief of injunction to eﬀect correction of date or birth in any of the registers and dismissed the writ petition. It was observed that if the petitioner obtained a decree declaring his date of birth and the 2nd respondent failed to correct the same, he had to follow the procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.1263, Education, dated 06.05.1961 as amended from time to time in G.O.Ms.No.77, Education (EE) dated 23.02.1988. The learned Single Judge also gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent for correction of his date of birth according to the rules in force. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed. Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised the same contentions as raised in the writ petition and also sought to rely on the judgment of this Court reported in K.MADHADEVA SASTRY v. DIRECTOR, POST GRADUATE CENTRE, ANANTAPUR[1], wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that, on a decree being passed in favour of the petitioner declaring a particular date as date of his birth, a subsequent writ petition for direction to implement the decree is maintainable and is not hit by Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. The admitted fact is that the appellant/petitioner had obtained a decree from the civil Court declaring his date of birth as 10.05.1961, but not 15.03.1959. A perusal of the judgment also goes to show that an observation was made by the Civil Court that “no relief is sought for against any of the defendant for carrying out the date of birth in any of the records. Thus, all the defendants are unnecessarily dragged before the Court, and therefore, the plaintiﬀ is liable to pay costs to all the defendants”. In view of the above observation, we are of the opinion that proceedings of the 2nd respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner to correct his date of birth is legal and valid and the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date:23-07-2008 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J GS/ ASP [1] AIR 1982 A.P. 176