IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6187 of 2009 Between: N. Rajendra Prasad S/o. Late Gopalakrishnaiah R/o. D.No. 6/385, Sali Street, Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Chairman -Cum-Managing Director United India Insurance Company Limited Regd. and Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Chennai, Tamilnadu State. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.V.S.MEHAR KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in considering the petitioner’s representations, dated 09.05.2007 and 05.12.2008 for alteration of his date of birth in terms of G.O.Ms.No.95, Finance and Planning (Fw.F.R.1) Department, dated 15.03.1994, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is working as a Branch Manager of respondent company at Ongole. According to him, his date of birth was wrongly entered in the school records as 21.05.1958 as against his correct date of birth of 21.01.1960 and that on the basis of the said entry in the school records, his date of birth was entered in the service register when he joined the service of the respondent on 20.11.1980. He claims that he made a representation on 09.05.2007 followed by another representation, dated 05.12.2008 for correction of entry in the service register. He placed reliance on the Rules framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and notified in G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 21.04.1984. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the averments, I am of the view that this writ petition is wholly misconceived. In the first place, placing reliance on the Rules framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh itself is misplaced because undisputedly, United India Insurance Company Limited is not an organ of the State Government and, therefore, the said Rules have no application to it. When the learned counsel was asked as to how these Rules would help the petitioner, even assuming that they apply to this case, the learned counsel relied upon Rule 2A of the Rules, which reads as under: “In any proceedings before the Government or any Court, Tribunal or other authority for the alteration of date of birth in the service records, the decree of a Civil Court in regard to alteration of the date of birth in the School or the University records or the contents in the judgment leading to such decree, or the effect of its implementation shall not be taken into consideration in derogation to these rules and it is hereby declared that these rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of a Civil Court in regard to the alteration of date of birth in the School or the University records whether or not Government is a party to such proceedings.” In my considered view, the above-reproduced Rule relied upon by the learned counsel, instead of helping the petitioner is against him. Even in a case where a decree has been passed for alteration of date of birth, the Rules will have overriding effect over such decrees. In the instant case, it is not even the case of the petitioner that a competent Court of law has declared his date of birth as 21.01.1960. Even if such a decree is passed, according to the Rule referred to above, the same is not binding on the State Government. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.8084 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th MARCH, 2009. kvni