IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE TWENTYIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2004 SECOND APPEAL NO. 663 OF 2009 Between: SA.No. 188 OF 2004 The Asst.General Manager Union Bank of India Regional Office, Nampally, Hyderabad. … Appellant-Defendant No.7 V/s. A.Sudhakar & 6-Ors. … Respondent-Plaintiff Defendants 1 to 6/Respondents 2 to 7 Counsel for the Appellant : Sri C.R. Sridharan Counsel for the Respondent : Sri P.Balamukunda Rao for R-1 Between: SA.No. 663 OF 2009 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the District Collector, Kurnool & 2-Ors. … Appellants-Respondents 1, 2 & 4 V/s. A.Sudhakar & 3-Ors. … Respondent-Plaintiff Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : GP for Arbitration Counsel for the Respondents : Sri P.Balamukunda Rao The Court made the following : (Common Judgment follows next page). THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2004 SECOND APPEAL NO. 663 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff in both the appeals. 2. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated13-11-2003 passed in AS.No. 61 of 2001 by the V-Additional District Judge, (FTC), Kurnool, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28-2-2000 passed in OS.No. 485 of 1997 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 3. Since both the second appeals involve the same substantial question of law to be considered between the same parties, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by the following common judgment. 4. Shortly stated, the facts relevant for considering the second appeals are as follows: Originally the respondent, Mr. A. Sudhakar, who was working as a Manager in Union Bank of India, Nampally Branch, Hyderabad, filed the suit for declaration that his date of birth was not 12-03-1951 but it is 09- 03-1953 and for mandatory injunction for effecting necessary corrections in the service records of Mr.A.Sudhakar, the contesting respondent. Admittedly, Mr.A.Sudhakar, joined the service of Union Bank of India, long prior to filing of the suit. After rendering several years of service, he filed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction as aforesaid. 5. The substantial question of law involved for consideration in these second appeals is as follows: “ Whether Mr.A.Sudhakar (plaintiff) is entitled to seek for declaration by correcting his date of birth from 12-03-1951 to 09-03-1953 ?” 6. Mr.A. Sudhakar, the plaintiff, did not assign any cogent reason as to why he filed the suit long after joining the service in Union Bank of India. Section 30 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 lays down the State Government may, with the approval of the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act. 7. As per the Rules framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, there is a separate procedure contemplated for the correction of date of birth in school records and separate mechanism has been provided by the Rules. As per the Rules, the person, who wants correction of the date of birth on the ground that it was wrongly mentioned has to approach the Headmaster of the School where he studied and the Headmaster will forward the application to the Collector of the District, who makes an enquiry into the actual date of birth of the individual and after arriving at a finding a notification in the Official Gazette will be made to that effect. The plaintiff in the present case did not follow any such procedure for correction of his date of birth. Rule 2 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 lays down every Government employee shall, within one month from the date on which he joins duty, make a declaration as to his date of birth. Rule 2 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 lays down that on receiving the said application, the Head of Office or any other Officer, who maintains the service records in respect of such Government employee shall, after making such enquiry as may be deemed fit, with regard to the declaration and after taking into consideration such evidence, if any, as may be adduced in respect of the said declaration, make an order within four months from the date on which the Government employee joins service determining the date of birth. Rule 2 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 lays down that the date of birth determined under this rule shall be entered in the service records of the employee concerned duly attested by the Head of the Office or the Officer who maintains the service records and the date of birth so entered, shall be final and binding and the Government employee shall be stopped from disputing the correctness of such date of birth. Rule 2 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 lays down that the date of birth as determined and entered in the service record shall not be altered except in case of bonafide, clerical error, under the orders from the Government. 8. In the instant case, the plaintiff submitted that when her elder sister’s H.S.C. Certificate was lost, she applied for a duplicate one and after knowing her correct date of birth, he realized that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned. The said submission made by the plaintiff is quite unconvincing and it cannot be said to have been arisen out of bonafide mistake. Rule 2-A lays down that for the purpose of making correction with regard to the date of birth after the employment, he cannot seek decree. 9. Moreover, in this case, the Union Bank of India, who is the employer of the plaintiff, is not made a party. Initially, the General Manager, Central Office of Union Bank of India was made as defendant and subsequently by means of an amendment the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Union Bank of India was made as defendant in the place of General Manager. Either the General Manager or the Assistant General Manager in their individual capacity cannot be said to be the employers of the plaintiff. Therefore, without impleading the employer i.e., the Union Bank of India as defendant in the suit, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek a declaration as to the correction of his date of birth and also for mandatory injunction to correct the date of birth in his service register. 10. The learned trial Court considering all these aspects held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the same. However, the learned First Appellate Court by adopting perverse reasoning and without considering the settled legal position on the subject, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff granting the relief of declaration as to the correct date of birth of the plaintiff and also for mandatory injunction for correcting the entries in the service records relating to the date of birth of the plaintiff. The findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court being perverse and contrary to the law and are liable to be set-aside in these second appeals. 11. In the result, the decree and judgment dated 13-11-2003 passed by the first appellate court in AS.No. 61 of 2001 reversing the judgment and decree dated 28-02-2000 passed by the trial Court in OS.No. 485 of 1997 is set aside. The second appeals are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 20-07-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2004 AND SECOND APPEAL No. 663 OF 2009 COMON JUDGMENT Circulation No.26 Date:20-07-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43