IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7919 of 2008 Between: Banda Narasimhulu S/o.Narasimhulu D.No.52/42, K.Ramapuram, Rayachoti-5 Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC., rep.by its Managing Director Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad,Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Allagadda Kadapa District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 22.12.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India R/w APSRTC employees (Service) Regulations,1964 and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith consider the representation dated 22.12.2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.VIJAY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner joined in A.P.S.R.T.C. as a Conductor in 1978. He claims to have passed S.S.L.C. However, in the service register, no reference is made to the S.S.L.C. certificate and the date of birth was mentioned as 23.03.1951 on the basis of medical certificate. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 22.12.2007, with a prayer to alter his date of birth in the service register as 01.07.1951, by making reference to S.S.L.C. certificate. His grievance is that the respondents have not taken any action thereon. Heard Sri N.Vijay, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner claims the benefit of about three months in relation to his age. In the service register, his date of birth was mentioned as 23.03.1951 on the basis of medical certificate. The petitioner placed reliance upon a transfer certificate, dated 15.12.1966, said to have been issued by the school in which he studied, wherein, his date of birth is mentioned as 01.07.1951. The petitioner did not choose to place the S.S.L.C. certificate before the respondents till he virtually reached the age of superannuation. Time and again, this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the claims for modification of dates of birth made at the fag end of the service cannot be entertained. In the instant case, the petitioner did not place any reliance upon the S.S.L.C. certificate either when he entered the service or for decades subsequent thereto. At a time when he is about to attain the age of superannuation, he has come forward with this representation. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.04.2008 KDL ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}