HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETTIION No. 21211 of 2001 DATED: 26-11-2010 Between: Edunuri Durgaiah …Petitioner And The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., rep. by its General Manager & 2 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETTIION No. 21211 of 2001 O R D E R: The petitioner seeks Writ of Mandamus by way of declaration that the action of the respondents seeking to retire him from service w.e.f. 01-01-2004 is illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service upto 31-12-2015 or in the alternative to direct the respondents to refer the petitioner to Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age. 2. The petitioner was working as General Mazdoor, GDK 5 Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godhavarikhani, Karimnagar District. The 3rd respondent/Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Peddapalli, sponsored name of the petitioner in October, 1983 for recruitment to the post of Fitter. It is alleged that at the time of sponsoring name of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent mentioned his year of birth as 1953 and after selection process the petition was appointed as Fitter w.e.f. 04.12.1983. It is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of appointment, he disclosed his age as 28 years and that he was under bonafide impression that his age was correctly entered in the records. The petitioner was confirmed in the said post and subsequently, he was converted as General Mazdoor. It is further contended that after coming to know about the entry of his age erroneously as 40 years at the time of his appointment, the petitioner began submitting representations to the management. It is contended that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamanpoor, issued age certificate showing his year of birth as 1954. Ultimately, the management gave proceedings on 03-08-2001 seeking him to retire from service w.e.f. 01-01-2004. Therefore, he approached this court with this writ petition. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that minimum age for recruitment to any post in the company was 28 years and in case of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates, it is 35 years and that therefore, a person aged 40 years would not have been appointed in the company in the year 1983. No such rules prescribing minimum age for recruitment in the company are placed before this court. There is no material to show that the petitioner declared his age as 28 years in the year 1983 and to show that the 3rd respondent while sponsoring the petitioner’s name, mentioned his year of birth as 1953. Even as per the petitioner’s case and as per his service record with the company, he was shown as 40 years as on 04.12.1983 when he entered into service of the company. Service record at the time of entry into service operates as a contract of service between the employer and the employee. The contract of service as per service record cannot be allowed to be altered unilaterally, particularly, when there is no proof for the petitioner’s contention about his age either 28 years or 30 years at the time of his entry into service, he cannot be heard to say that he was not aged 40 years at the time of his entry into service and that his age was erroneously noted by the management in his service record. 5. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that it is usual practice in the company to refer an employee to the so called Apex Medical Board of the company, when there is a dispute regarding the age and that the same procedure may be followed in the petitioner’s case also. The petitioner did not file any rules or procedure of the company to refer a person to the Apex Medical Board for determination of age of an employee. Such an exercise of referring a candidate to the Apex Medical Board can be made at the time of entry of the candidate into service in case there is any dispute regarding age of that candidate; and it is not open to the employee to demand the management to refer him to the Apex Medical Board for determination of his age at the fag end of his service, when retirement notice was served on him. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this petition. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 26-11-2010 Mjl/*