Judgment : 1. Petitioner joined the service of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited (for short ‘the Corporation’), the 2nd respondent, in the year 1983 and his services were regularized in the year 1989. His age and date of birth were entered in the ‘B’ Register, maintained by the respondents. The Corporation retired him from the service on 30th June, 2011 stating that he attained the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. The petitioner states that his date of birth was altered in the ‘B’ Register without notice to him and that he was forcibly retired from service, much before he attained the actual age of superannuation. 2. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that when the petitioner joined the service, his age was noted in the ‘B’ Register, and it is only at a later point of time, viz., regularization of services that the date of birth was mentioned. It is further stated that in the service particulars of as many as 98 employees, it was noticed that there is a serious discrepancy between the age on the one hand and the dates of birth on the other hand existed, and to rectify the anomaly, the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, 1st respondent, issued proceedings, dated 26-05-1994, directing that irrespective of the age and dates of birth entered in the ‘B’ Register or the date of joining of an employee, his date of birth shall be treated as 1st of July of the corresponding year in which he was employed. It is also stated that on 16-08-1996, the Executive Director issued proceedings re-determining the dates of birth of all 98 employees, standardizing them to 1st of July of the corresponding year and that, in the process, the date of birth of the petitioner was treated as 1st July, 1953. The respondents contend that once the petitioner has retired from service, he cannot be reengaged into service. 3. Heard Sri G. Jagadeeswar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the respondents. 4. The respondents maintain ‘B’ Register as required under the Mines Act. That Register contains the particulars of the candidates when they join the service. An important column is about the date of birth. 3. Heard Sri G. Jagadeeswar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the respondents. 4. The respondents maintain ‘B’ Register as required under the Mines Act. That Register contains the particulars of the candidates when they join the service. An important column is about the date of birth. It is not uncommon that persons, who are illiterate or who do not have any specific proof of date of birth join the service of such organizations to undertake rough and tedious jobs of drilling, blasting etc., in the mines. In many cases, the persons who do not have any proof of date of birth are subjected to medical test, the date of joining in the corresponding year is treated as the date of birth. For instance, if a person is certified to be of 25 years on 15th October in 1975, the date of birth would be mentioned as 15th October, 1950 (15-10-1975 – 25). 5. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that the age of the petitioner was mentioned in the ‘B’ Register. However, record does not disclose that the petitioner was subjected to any medical examination. At the time of regularization of his services, his date of birth was entered as 01-07-1955. It is not even alleged that the petitioner committed any fraud or illegality in furnishing the information. 6. In case, the respondents felt that the date of birth mentioned in the ‘B’ Register in relation to any employee was incorrect or was entered fraudulently, proceedings could certainly have been initiated by issuing notice to the employee concerned. Such a course was not adopted. The 1st respondent has taken a decision to ignore the entries in the Register and directed that irrespective of date of joining, the date of birth of a candidate shall be taken as 1st July of the year in which the employee joined, then minus the age, mentioned in the register. This is totally impermissible apart from being arbitrary and illegal. 7. Assuming that the decision taken by the 1st respondent was proper, it could have been implemented only after notice and verification from the affected person. Admittedly, no such notice was issued to any person. This is totally impermissible apart from being arbitrary and illegal. 7. Assuming that the decision taken by the 1st respondent was proper, it could have been implemented only after notice and verification from the affected person. Admittedly, no such notice was issued to any person. Through an order, dated 16-08-1996, which contains only one sentence, the dates of birth of 98 employees including the petitioner, were altered standardizing them to 1st of July of the corresponding year. The proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice and the rights of the petitioner cannot be defeated on the basis of such a patently illegal and unconstitutional exercise. 8. It is sought to be urged that the petitioner and other persons were communicated the orders, dated 16-08-1996, and thereby there is compliance of principles of natural justice. This contention is to be noted, only to reject it. Firstly, the petitioner flatly denied the receipt of any such communication. Secondly, even if there is communication, it cannot remove the basic infirmity of the proceedings, which were issued in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Viewed from any angle, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained in law. 9. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. It is directed that the respondents shall continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of superannuation as per the date of birth entered in the ‘B’ Register or the Service Register, as the case may be. However, it is left open to the respondents to take steps in accordance with law, if they intend to alter the entry as to the date of birth of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.