IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2124 OF 2010 Between: Smt. Chenna Rajeshwari .....PETITIONER AND The state, represented by the District Collecor, Visakhapatnam and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2124 OF 2010 ORDER: This petitioner is the appellant in A.S.No.1 of 2010 on the file of Vacation Judge (Sitting as District Judge), Visakhapatnam. She filed O.S.No.117 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking declaration of her date of birth as 02.06.1954. The suit ended in dismissal by judgement, dated 06.04.2010. The petitioner filed A.S.No.1 of 2010 before the Vacation Judge at Visakhapatnam. She also moved I.A.No.40 of 2010 seeking interim direction to respondent No.2 to maintain status-quo of her services. The learned Vacation Judge at Visakhapatnam ordered urgent notice to the respondents returnable by 17.05.2010. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is retiring on 31.05.2010 and therefore, urgent orders are required to be passed on the application moved by the petitioner before the Vacation Judge and as the Vacation Judge has not passed urgent orders, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. It is a matter of record that the petitioner joined in respondent No.2 - Corporation as advised on 11.09.1978. As on the date of joining in service, she has shown her date of birth as 01.06.1950. After nearly thirty years of service, she filed O.S.No.117 of 2009, seeking declaration that her date of birth is 02.06.1954. The trial Court on thorough consideration of the material brought on record, refused to grant declaration as sought for by the petitioner by judgment, dated 06.04.2010. 4. It is well settled that alteration of date of birth, at the fag end of the service not permissible vide the decision of this Court in Kotte Rajam vs. Singareni Collieries Company Limited[1]. Rejection of request of the employees for alteration of date of birth by the employer cannot be found fault vide the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad vs. V. Narayana Reddy[2]. 5. In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve for any ex parte interim orders, pending disposal of A.S.No.1 of 2010. The appellate Court is justified in not granting any ex parte order and ordering notice to the respondent on the application filed by the petitioner pending the appeal. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J May 26, 2010 MD/IVD [1] 2008 (6) ALD 668 [2] 2006 (5) ALD 492 (DB)