THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WP NO.28223 OF 2005 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J ) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 26-10-2005 passed in OA No.155 of 2003 by the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and the proceedings dated 2-11-2002 issued by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, improper and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to alter the date of birth of the petitioner herein as 15-10-1954 from 10-6-1953 by treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 15-10-1954. By an amended payer in WPMP No.10266 of 2010, the petitioner also sought for to set aside Rule 5 of the AP Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984, issued in GO Ms.No.165, dated 21-04-1984, as bad illegal and unconstitutional. 2. The brief facts of the case are;- The petitioner joined into Government service as UD Stenographer on 31-3-1981 and his services were regularized in that post on 5-4-1983 and got promotions from time to time and now working as Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Indirasagar, Polavaram Project, Rajahumundry. It is his case that his father, at the time of joining him in school, has recorded his date of birth wrongly as 10-6-1953 instead of 15-10-1954 and the wrongly entered date of birth remained in the school records although and reflected in SCC certificate as well. On coming to know that his date of birth was wrongly entered in the service records, the petitioner made an application to provide for extract of records relating to his date of birth to the Tahsildar, Repalle Taluk and the Tahsildar furnished extract of the date of birth by proceedings dated 23-10-1982 indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as 15-10-1954. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner made a representation dated 16-2-1983 to the 2nd respondent-Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, seeking for alteration of the date of birth as 15-10-1954 and also requested to correct his name and community and the same was forwarded to the 3rd respondent-Collector, Guntur, for enquiry and report. It is stated that Tahsildar, Pallapatla, by his letter dated 22-2- 1983 addressed to the District Collector, Guntur District, after making enquiry gave report that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15-10-1954 and belongs to Nayee Brahmin (Mangala) and his correct name is “Seetharamaiah”. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent-District Collector, Guntur, by proceedings dated 5-3-1983 passed orders directing the Tahsildar to correct the date of birth and also carry out other corrections as found in his report and issue a corrected extract of the date of birth of the petitioner. Thereafter the 2nd respondent-Chief Commissioner of Land Adminstration, Hyderabad, by letter dated 28-9-1984 addressed to the 1st respondent-Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (SCR.I), Department, Hyderabad, for correction of date of birth of the petitioner as found by the Tahsildar, Pallapatla, as the Government alone is competent to alter the date of birth entered in the service register. The 1st respondent by his memo dated 16-1-1986 informed the 2nd respondent that the date of birth of the petitioner cannot be corrected in the service register as there was no bona-fide clerical mistake in recording the date of birth in the service register and the same was informed to the petitioner by proceedings dated 17-3-1986 by the 2nd respondent. It is also on record that the petitioner made series of representations through the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent for re- consideration. The last being dated 1-9-2002, but the 1st respondent by the impugned memo dated 2-11-2002 rejected the request reiterating the same reasons as was stated in the earlier rejection orders. The said rejection order dated 2-11-2002 was called in question before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the OA on the ground that the entry made in the service register at the time of joining service was not based on a bona-fide clerical error, but was based on a material produced by the petitioner himself at the time of entering the service. Tribunal has also made reference to Section 5 of the AP Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984, which mandate that the correction of date of birth in service register shall be dealt with on the basis of the recorded age in the School and College records at the time of entry into service. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner’s claim for alteration of his date of birth ought to have been considered in the light of the orders issued in GO Ms.No.358, dated 10-8-1972, as he has put in representation during his probation period of two years and that his request was for alteration of date of birth and not for correction of bona-fide clerical error. It was also contended that the age recorded in his school records was not in conformity with the age recorded in the birth register. 5. A perusal of the contents of GO Ms.No.358, dated 10-8-1972, alteration of date of birth in the service book in respect of non-Gazetted Government servants was entertainable within two years from the date of commencement of probation and as contended by the learned counsel, the petitioner made such a request for alteration within two years of his appointment as UD Steno, but the fact the remains that till his request could be considered, rules were framed in GO Ms.No.165, dated 21-4-1984 i.e. AP Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984. It is to be noted that these rules are issued in supercession of all the earlier rules governing the field. As per Rule 5 of the said Rules, the Government servants who have already applied for alteration of their date of birth and pending as on the date of the coming into force of the new rules, were to be dealt with on the basis of the recorded age in the school and college records at the time of entry into service. It is not the case of the petitioner that at the time of joining the service his date of birth was wrongly entered in the service register and it was bona-fide clerical error. The date of birth of the petitioner was entered into the service register based on the material produced by him and therefore there is no bona-fide clerical error in making entry with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner in his service register. In the light of the language used in Rule 5 of the Rules the petitioner’s case was rejected, which cannot be found fault. Rule 5 lays down that where application of a Government servant for alteration of his date of birth was pending as on the date of coming into force of the new Rules, the same shall have to be treated on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the school and college records at the time of entry of the employee into service. Thus, if on the date of entry into service the date of birth of a Government servant was recorded in his service book on the basis of his age as recorded in the school and college certificates, the same cannot be corrected in the light of Rule 5 of the Rules. Learned counsel sought to contend that the bar imposed on alteration of date of birth on the pending cases prior to issuance of new Rules is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But we are not convinced with the argument of the learned counsel for the reason the underlying object in framing the new rules in GO Ms.No.165, dated 21-4-1984 by the Government was to avoid repeated applications by the government servants for the correction/alteration of date of birth. The rules seek to achieve a larger public purpose, as any casual procedure for correction/alteration of date of birth would lead chaotic situations and give rise to fresh cause of action to the persons to be affected. In STATE OF UP vs. GULAICHI (2003 (6) SCC 483) the Supreme Court consider the similar subject matter at para 11 held thus:- “11. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the courts, tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may loose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an important and relevant aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible…” 6. In STATE OF PUNJAB vs. SC CHADHA (2004 (3) SCC 394) at para 12 it was held thus;- “12. In the instant case the High Secondary Examination Certificate was issued on 3.6.1962 which contained information that the date of birth of respondent was only 19.6.1944. If the said certificate disclosed a wrong date, it is not explained by the respondent as to why he did not make any move to get it corrected at that point or on any one of the occasions when he sought and obtained employment in 7/8 public institutions. Merely because in 1994 an opportunity was granted to the Government employees to get their date of birth corrected, that does not take away the effect of inaction and continued silence for more than three decades, which de hors laches on his part would seriously reflect on the bona fide nature of the claim itself. Even in the application made for employment in the year 1992-93 the date of birth was indicated, as noted above to be 19.6.1944. No contemporaneous document was produced to show that recording of the date of birth to be 19.6.1944 was wrong. Accepting the plea of the respondent would result in two public records, Educational on one side and service on the other hand reflecting two different and conflicting dates of birth. Such anomalous situations are to be averted and not to be countenanced. In view of the aforesaid, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the orders of the Government and directing correction of the date of birth in the service records of the respondent as now claimed by him. The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.” 7. In the instant case, the request of the petitioner for alteration of his date of birth is rejected by the Government on more than one occasion and therefore he cannot now contend that the new Rules farmed are bad. The Supreme Court in GOVERNMENT OF AP vs. M.HAYAGREEV SARMA (1990 (2) SCC 682) had an occasion to consider Rule 5 of the Rules and upheld the same. 8. In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ K.G.Shankar,J Dated: 24-1-2011 Nrg.