* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD +WRIT PETITION No.16442 of 2008 % Dated: 30-09-2008 Between: # Smt. R.Vijaya Kumari .. Petitioner and $ The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents < GIST : >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 16442 of 2008 Between: Smt. R. Vijaya Kumari W/o J. Narsinga Rao Integrated Child Development Scheme, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary Women Development Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, Women Development and Child Welfare, Hyderabad. 3 The Project Director, District Women and Child development Agency, Nizamabad. 4 The Regional deputy Director, Women Development and Child Welfare, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, and quashthe order dated 30-6-2008 and passed in O.A. No. 4374 of 2007 conﬁrmingthe impugned Govt. Memo No. 2566/Estt.A1/2006 dt 16- 7-2007 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, unjust, cotnrary to law in violation of principles of ntural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and grant all consequential benefits, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.16442 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 30-06-2008 passed in O.A.No.4374 of 2007 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The details relevant and necessary for deciding this writ petition are that the petitioner herein ﬁled the above O.A. challenging the Government Memo No.2566/Estt.A1/2006, dated 16-07-2008 by which her request for correction of date of birth was rejected. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Balwadi teacher on 06-08-1979 vide proceedings dated 30-07-1979 issued by fourth respondent and the said post was converted as Supervisor and that her date of birth as per Secondary School Certiﬁcate is 17-09-1955, whereas in the provisional seniority list issued by fourth respondent, it was mentioned as 04-02-1953. It is the case of the petitioner that she had submitted a representation on 26-08-2000, along with Secondary School Certiﬁcate, to the second respondent informing that her correct date of birth is 17-09-1955, but due to clerical error, it was wrongly recorded as 17-09-1950 in the service register. The petitioner submits that when the seniority list was published, her date of birth was wrongly shown and she made a representation again on 10-02-2001, which was rejected vide proceedings dated 26-06-2002 issued by the second respondent and the same was challenged in O.A.No.9054 of 2002. The said O.A. was disposed of directing the respondent concerned to consider the representation and pass orders, pursuant to which the order in O.A.No.4374 of 2007 had been passed conﬁrming the rejection of the representation. The oﬃcial respondents mainly contended that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 17-09- 1950 in the service register and after putting in nearly 20 years of service, she seeks correction of date of birth in the service book, that too at the fag end of her service. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, held that the petitioner has not sought the said correction within reasonable time and she made a representation in the year 2001, which is about 22 years after her appointment and 17 years after Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 came into force and accordingly dismissed the O.A. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the applicant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents and perused the record. 4. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had submitted Secondary School Certiﬁcate which shows that her date of birth is 17-09-1955, but the authority erred in rejecting the request for correction of date of birth mainly on the ground that she has not made such request within reasonable time. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to Rule 2(5) of the said Rules and contended that the date of birth entered in the service register can be altered in the case of bonaﬁde clerical error, under the orders of the Government and no time limit is prescribed for correction of clerical mistakes, the Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents contended that the date of birth in the seniority list was shown as 04-02-1953 by mistake, and it cannot be the criterion and that once an employee had joined the service, the entries made in the service register at the time of joining will be the conclusive proof. Learned Government Pleader also contended that the petitioner had made the representation at the fag end of her service and there is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order and the Tribunal rightly declined to grant relief, especially when she was aware of the fact and kept quiet during the course of service. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the counsel and perused the record including the service register. 7. The point for consideration is whether the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book was recorded wrongly as 17-09-1950 due to clerical error and what is the correct date of birth? 8. The petitioner claims that her date of birth is 17-09-1955 on the strength of Secondary School Certiﬁcate, which is ﬁled at page-59 of the material papers. A perusal of the said certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, shows that the petitioner had studied in Z.P.H.S., Burgpalli, and appeared in S.S.C. examination in June, 1971 and the date of birth is recorded as 17-09-1955, so also the bonaﬁde and conduct certiﬁcate. The petitioner also made a representation seeking correction of date of birth in the service book along with the Secondary School Certiﬁcate. In fact, the Regional Deputy Director, Women Development and Child Welfare, Hyderabad, had addressed Lr.No.525/A/2004, dated 02-06-2005, to the Director, Women Development and Child Welfare, Hyderabad, requesting that the Government may be addressed for issue of permission for alteration of date of birth as 17-09-1955 instead of 17-09- 1950 recorded in the service book of the petitioner as it is purely a clerical error. Pursuant thereto, the said Director had sent a communication vide Lr.No.4080.C1/03, dated 14-03-2006 to the Government seeking permission to correct the date of birth as 17-09-1955 in place of 17-09-1950 as recorded in the service book. Thus, it appears that the matter was pending with the Government from 2006 onwards and ultimately, the Government rejected the petitioner’s request in terms of Rule 4(1) and (2) of the said Rules. The Government had merely rejected the representation without assigning any reasons. Rule 2(5) of the said Rules clearly stipulates that the date of birth entered in the service record, shall not be altered except in the case of bonaﬁde clerical error, under the orders of the Government. The immediate superior authority, under whose control the petitioner is working, had clearly stated that her date of birth was wrongly entered due to clerical error and that no time limit is ﬁxed for correcting the bonaﬁde clerical error and as such, we are of the considered view that Rule 4(1) and (2) of the Rules are not applicable to the facts of the present case. When the authority had stated that there is a clerical error, the Government ought to have given permission to correct the date of birth basing on the Secondary School Certiﬁcate produced by the petitioner. It is to be noted that the clerical error had crept in much prior to the Rules came into the force. We do not see any compelling reason to disbelieve the oﬃcial correspondence between the two oﬃcers in the course of discharging the oﬃcial duties, especially when there is a categorical admission that the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly entered in the service book due to clerical error. Further, the petitioner on coming to know about incorrect date of birth, probably when the seniority list was published, had immediately made a representation for its rectiﬁcation and thus, the delay is not entirely attributable to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly entered in the service register due to clerical error and the correct date of birth as per Secondary School Certiﬁcate is 17- 09-1955, which is supported by the internal communication between the higher officials. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside, and consequently O.A. stands allowed thereby setting aside the Government Memo dated 16-07-2007. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 30-09-2008 bsc