Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 888 (AP)

M. Sudhakar Rao v. Director of School Education

2013-10-11

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The petitioner joined the service as a Para Medical Assistant in the year 1977. His date of birth in the service records was entered as 01.07.1952, on the basis of the entries in the S.S.C. records. Stating that the entry of the date of birth in the S.S.C certificate is not correct, he made a representation to the District Educational Officer, Warangal, 3rd respondent herein for correction thereof. It so emerged that the petitioner studied for some time in the Central Primary School, Peddamadur, for some time in Zilla Parishad Secondary School, Devaruppala and thereafter in the Government High School, New Kothur. The Deputy Educational Officer, Warangal submitted a report on 30.09.2003 to the effect that though the date of birth of the petitioner was entered in the records of Central Primary School, Peddamadur as 01.07.1955, it was entered as 01.07.1952 in the records of Zilla Parishad Secondary School, Devaruppala and Government High School, New Kothur and accordingly, recommended for necessary correction. It appears that the report of the Head Master, Government High School, New Kothur was not taken into account. The 3rd respondent herein passed an order, dated 05.02.2008 expressing the view that the request of the petitioner cannot be entertained. 2. The petitioner filed O.A.No.518 of 2010 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal challenging the proceedings, dated 05.02.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent. He pleaded that the representation was made by him way back in the year 1972, much before he joined the service and there was no basis for not acceding to his request. During the pendency of the O.A., the petitioner retired from service in 2010. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. through order, dated 24.01.2013. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Sri V.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Educational Officer clearly recorded a finding to the effect that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1955 and that it was wrongly entered in the records of Zilla Parishad Secondary School, Devaruppala and Government High School at New Kothuru and instead of correcting the same, the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned order on wrong notion. He further submits that the petitioner was entitled to be continued in service on the basis of his date of birth as 01.07.1955. 4. He further submits that the petitioner was entitled to be continued in service on the basis of his date of birth as 01.07.1955. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I on the other hand submits that the O.A. was not maintainable, since it was directed against an order passed by the District Educational Officer which has nothing to do with the service matter. He contends that even by the time he was retired from service, the date of birth in the S.S.C. certificate remained as 01.07.1952 and no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. A serious doubt arises as to the maintainability of the O.A. filed by the petitioner. O.A. can be filed only in relation to any dispute pertaining to service matter. The subject matter before the 3rd respondent was purely a question of correction of date of birth. This is not a matter concerning the service of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the representation is said to have been made, much before the petitioner joined the service and steps were taken on that representation, though belatedly. It is only when the date of birth in the S.S.C. certificate is corrected and the same is not taken into account by the appointing authority, that an occasion would have arisen for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. Therefore, the very invocation of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal becomes a bit untenable. 6. Assuming that the filing of the O.A. is otherwise proper, it needs to be seen that an employee can seek the relief as to correction of date of birth, only when the entries in the service record are found to be not consistent with the authenticated record. It hardly needs any mention that the date of birth entered in the S.S.C. record shall constitute the basis. By the time the petitioner retired from service in the year 2010, the date of birth in the S.S.C. certificate remained as 01.07.1952. There was no way that he could have insisted on his employer to correct date of birth in the service register. Viewed from any angle, the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.