Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 89 (AP)

B. Ranganatha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-02-04

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2020
JUDGMENT : M Satyanarayana Murthy, J. Dr. B.Ranganatha Reddy filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of respondent No.4 in issuing impugned endorsement dated 24.10.2019 without verifying the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Tadipatri, and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was born on 05.05.1952, but his date of birth was recorded in SSLC register as 01.07.1950 as the petitioner was under aged to appear for SSLC examination. The then Headmaster of Sri Potti Sriramulu High School, Ananthapur entered the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.07.1950 instead of original date of birth to avoid loss of academic year. 3. At the time of admission into MBBS course, the petitioner came to know about the wrong recording of date of birth, but he did not apply for change of date of birth with an apprehension that in case the original date of birth is restored, the petitioner is ineligible due to under age to study the medicine course. After joining into service, the petitioner vigorously made attempts to restore the original date of birth in the records, but he could not succeed in getting the date of birth corrected in the records. The petitioner could not trace out any date of birth records in Municipal Office of Tadipatri, hence, he did not apply for change of date of birth while in Government service within the time limitation and subsequently the petitioner retired from the Government service after attaining age of Superannuation on 30.06.2008 based on the date of birth recorded in SSLC register. 4. Recently, the petitioner found some old records pertaining to his original date of birth while shifting his residence, where it was recorded that the original date of birth is 05.05.1952. On finding such record, the petitioner became sentimental to acquire the original date of birth to enable to keep the same for record purpose, which is useful to the petitioner for future generation for preparation of Kundali and Jathakam accurately. 5. It is specifically contended that after obtaining the certificate for original date of birth, the petitioner will not challenge in Court of law against Government or any agency to claim any benefit as he retired from service on 30.06.2008 on attaining Superannuation as per the SSLC record. 5. It is specifically contended that after obtaining the certificate for original date of birth, the petitioner will not challenge in Court of law against Government or any agency to claim any benefit as he retired from service on 30.06.2008 on attaining Superannuation as per the SSLC record. The petitioner filed W.P.No.8002 of 2019 before this Court to consider the representation dated 01.05.2019 and the same was disposed of by this Court, whereunder a direction was issued to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 01.05.2019. Immediately, the petitioner approached respondent No.2, who stated that no entry is available in the birthday register of 1950 maintained by respondent No.2. Subsequently, the petitioner approached respondent No.4, who is the competent authority to issue birth certificate to the petitioner in case the records are not traced out by respondent No.2. But respondent No.4 assigned the duty to respondent No.5 to verify the records. Accordingly, respondent No.5 verified the records and sent the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector to respondent No.4. As per the report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector, the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.05.1952, but the same was not considered by respondent No.4. Therefore, sought for a direction as stated above. 6. During hearing, Sri K. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if date of birth is changed from 01.07.1950 to original date of birth i.e. 05.05.1952, the petitioner will not get any benefit as he already retired from service in the year 2008, it is only to maintain record as sentiment, therefore, requested to issue a direction as claimed by the petitioner. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue contended that no such direction need be issued as respondent No.4 is not competent to issue such birth certificate making certain alterations. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and requested to dismiss the petition. 8. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the date of birth in SSLC register was wrongly noted as 01.07.1950 instead of 05.05.1952 and he realised the mistake when he was admitted in MBBS course after completion of PUC/intermediate. When the petitioner detected the mistake at the age of 17 or 18, he would have taken steps, but he took the same as advantage to get admission in the MBBS course, accordingly, he completed his education and Government service also. When the petitioner detected the mistake at the age of 17 or 18, he would have taken steps, but he took the same as advantage to get admission in the MBBS course, accordingly, he completed his education and Government service also. After 12 years from the date of retirement, he wanted to get the date of birth corrected though no document is available in support of his date of birth. As the petitioner detected the defect, he ought to have followed the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1263, Education, dated 06.05.1961, which deals with the procedure for correction of date of birth in Secondary School Leaving Certificates, Higher Secondary Certificates and Higher Secondary (Multipurpose) Certificates. 9. As per Rule (1) of G.O.Ms.No.1263 dated 06.05.1961, an application for the correction of the date of birth in a completed Secondary School Leaving Certificate, Higher Secondary Certificate or Higher Secondary (Multipurpose) Certificate shall be addressed to the Government through the Director of School Education and the Head of the School in which the person to whom the applications relates last studied. 10. As per Rule (2) of G.O.Ms.No.1263 dated 06.05.1961, the application may be preferred by the person concerned or by his or her father or mother, or by his or her guardian, if both the parents are not alive. 11. As per Rule (3) of G.O.Ms.No.1263 dated 06.05.1961, an application for the correction of date of birth shall be accompanied by the following documents. (a) An extract from the Birth Register of the Village or Municipality or Corporation concerned relating to everyone of all the children born to the parents including the person whose date of birth is sought to be corrected. (b) A sworn declaration (in the form prescribed in Annexure I) of the father or mother or guardian, if both the parents are not alive, to the effect that the birth extract containing the date of birth of his or her son/daughter/ward/relates to him or her only and to none else. (c) Another sworn declaration (in the form prescribed in Annexure II) of the father or mother or guardian, if both the parents are not alive, indicating the total number of children (both alive and dead) born to the same parents furnishing their full names and dates of birth. (d) The Secondary School Leaving Certificate or the Higher Secondary Certificate or Higher Secondary (Multipurpose) Certificate in original. (d) The Secondary School Leaving Certificate or the Higher Secondary Certificate or Higher Secondary (Multipurpose) Certificate in original. (e) A certified extract of the entries made in the Register of Admissions of the school-concerned containing the entries relating to the name, surname, name of parent or guardian and date of birth of the person. (f) The original transfer certificate or record sheet produced by the person at the time of his or her admission, if available in the school records. 12. The sworn declarations mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 3 above shall be attested by Gazetted Officer affixing the official seal of his office. If, however, an applicant is not able to produce a copy of the birth extract relating to him or to any of his brothers or sisters or if any of the documents referred to in Rule 3 above are not forthcoming, the applicant may submit his or her application stating the reasons as to why they are not available. On receipt of the application with the documents mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 3 above (if available) the Head of the schools shall, after enclosing the document in original mentioned in clause (f) and the certified extract mentioned in clause (e) of the said rule (if available), submit it immediately to the Director of School Education through the District Educational Officer concerned. On receipt of the application with the documents mentioned above, the Director shall forward it to the Collector of the District in which the applicant was born, for enquiry and report. The Collector shall cause a detailed enquiry to be conducted, and shall have the facts of the case verified and investigated. He shall submit his recommendations along with the record of enquiry in original. On receipt of Collector's report together with the original record of enquiry, the Director of School Education shall submit them, in original with his own recommendation to the Education Department. 13. Rule 10 of the G.O.Ms.No.1263 Education, dated 06.05.1961 specifically stated that the claims based merely on horoscopes shall under no circumstances be entertained. Therefore, the petitioner has to follow the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1263 Education, dated 06.05.1961, but based on Kundali and Jathakam, the request of the petitioner cannot be entertained under no circumstances. 13. Rule 10 of the G.O.Ms.No.1263 Education, dated 06.05.1961 specifically stated that the claims based merely on horoscopes shall under no circumstances be entertained. Therefore, the petitioner has to follow the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1263 Education, dated 06.05.1961, but based on Kundali and Jathakam, the request of the petitioner cannot be entertained under no circumstances. At the same time, Rule 12 of G.O.Ms.No.1263 Education dated 06.05.1961, created a bar to entertain the application of a person already in Government Service and they may have to follow the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.50, Finance and Planning (F.R.I.) Department, dated 10.02.1976. Therefore, the application of the petitioner after retirement from Government Service cannot be entertained. 14. As per Rule (6) of Section "B" of the G.O.Ms.No.1263 Education dated 06.05.1961, no application for the correction of the date of birth in the school records shall be entertained after a period of two years from the date of admission to the school. Thus, it is clear from the said G.O., the petitioner is not entitled to get the alteration of date of birth after retirement from service at the age of 70 years and in view of subsequent G.O.Ms.No.1130, Education (I) Department dated 28.09.1981 and G.O.Ms.No.1348, Education (I) Department dated 15.12.1981, the petitioner is not entitled to correct of date of birth after retirement from Government Service at a belated stage. Even all subsequent Government Orders also do not permit the State to correct the date of birth of the petitioner after retirement from Government Service. 15. In "Chief Medical Officer v. Khadeer Khadri, (1995) 2 SCC 82 ", the respondent therein joined the service on 15.11.1951. He had given his date of birth as 14.01.1933. In 1991, he made a representation to the corporation for alteration of date of birth as 15.07.1934. His request was turned down. He filed Original Application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal allowed the petition and directed to make correction. An appeal was filed to the Supreme Court. He had given his date of birth as 14.01.1933. In 1991, he made a representation to the corporation for alteration of date of birth as 15.07.1934. His request was turned down. He filed Original Application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal allowed the petition and directed to make correction. An appeal was filed to the Supreme Court. Referring to sub rule 5 of rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employees (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984, which provides power for correction of the bona fide mistake in recording the date of birth, the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "This is only a ruse to get over the bar of limitation to have the date of birth entered in the service record corrected. The rules prescribe the procedure for laying the application within three years from the date of entering into service. In 1976, executive instructions were issued for correction of date of birth which were replaced by statutory rules issued in 1984. The latter also prescribes the procedure. He did not avail of the opportunity when, twice, it was available to him to have it corrected. It would clearly show that subsequent belated attempt is not a bona fide one but to have the correction made to his advantage after the bar of limitation created by the rules. The Tribunal has not properly considered the matter in this perspective. The appeal is allowed." 16. In "Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar, (1995) 4 SCC 172 ", the Supreme Court held as follows :- "10. Entertainment by High Courts of writ applications made by employees of the Government or its instrumentalities at the fag end of their services and when they are due for retirement from their services, in our view, is unwarranted. It would be so for the reason that no employee can claim a right to correction of birth date and entertainment of such writ applications for correction of dates of birth of some employees of Government or its instrumentalities will mar the chances of promotion of their juniors and prove to be an undue encouragement to the other employees to make similar applications at the fag end of their service careers with the sole object of preventing their retirements when due. Extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, in our considered view, is not meant to make employees of Government or its instrumentalities to continue in service beyond the period of their entitlement according to dates of birth accepted by their employers, placing reliance on the so-called newly-found material. The fact that an employee of Government or its instrumentality who has been in service for over decades, with no objection whatsoever raised as to his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct, when all of a sudden comes forward towards the fag end of his service career with a writ application before the High Court seeking correction of his date of birth in his Service Record, the very conduct of non-raising of an objection in the matter by the employee, in our view, should be a sufficient reason for the High Court, not to entertain such applications on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay and laches. Moreover, discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court can never be said to have been reasonably and judicially exercised if it entertains such writ application, for no employee, who had grievance as to his date of birth in his "Service and Leave Record" could have genuinely waited till the fag end of his service career to get it corrected by availing of the extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation, in holding, that ordinarily High Courts should not, in exercise of their discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ application/petition filed by an employee of the Government or its instrumentality, towards the fag end of his service, seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his "Service and Leave Record" or Service Register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement." 17. In @ STRAT_TAG "Deoraj Sha v. National Jute Manufacturers Corporation, 2007 3 SLR 249", the petitioner took up employment in the respondent corporation on 11.05.1973. On the basis of his declaration, the year of birth was recorded in the dossier and ESI records as 1947 and when he was to retire from service in June 2005, he sought for alteration of his date of birth, on the basis of the school final certificate, wherein, the date of birth was recorded as 02.02.1954, and that he took up examination in August 1970. However, the learned counsel for the corporation contended that Fundamental Rules 56 Note 6- (a) would not permit any application for correction of date of birth after five years from the date of recording. Taking note of the rival submissions, the Calcutta High Court, at paragraphs 5 and 6, held as follows:- "5. Counsel for the company is absolutely right in his submissions. Provisions in F.R.56 Note 6-(a) specifically mentioned that request for alteration of date of birth would be entertainable only if it was made within five years of entry into government service. In the present case, the petitioner entered into service in 1973, and he made request for correction for the first time in 1990 (if his claim is taken to be true). Hence, in view of provisions in F.R.56 Note 6 his request for alteration of the date of birth was not entertainable. Simply because the board concerned certified genuineness of the certificate, he did not become entitled to get the recorded date of birth altered. 18. Though the principles laid down in the above judgments relate to alternation of date of birth in service records, the same principles can be applied to the present case for the reason that the petitioner is indirectly seeking the relief of registration of date of birth after 70 years from his birth as it was not registered with the concerned authorities. The Apex Court in the judgments (referred supra) held that even two years delay is sufficient to reject the petition for alteration of date of birth. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is fatal and no direction need be given to register the date of birth as 05.05.1952. 19. In any view of the matter, there is abnormal delay in making such application by the petitioner for correction of date of birth in the records. When the petitioner approached this Court almost after 50 years approximately he realised the mistake as he came to know about the same at the time of his admission in MBBS course, there is any amount of substantial delay in the challenge. On the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 20. When the petitioner approached this Court almost after 50 years approximately he realised the mistake as he came to know about the same at the time of his admission in MBBS course, there is any amount of substantial delay in the challenge. On the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 20. It is useful to refer to the passage from "City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Ors, (2009) 1 SCC 168 ", wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus: "The Court while exercising its jurisdiction Under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; (c) the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors." 21. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. (Vide: "Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Through its Chairman & Managing Director and Anr. v. K. Thangappan and Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 322") 22. The High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. (vide: "State of M.P. v. Nandalal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 ") 23. In "Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors. v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 " , it was held that, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances, inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant--a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 24. In "Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant--a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 24. In "Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors, (2013) 1 SCC 353 " it has been ruled that, delay and laches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. There is another facet. The Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delay and laches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity of cause action, etc. That apart, if the whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third-party interest is involved. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the doctrine of delay and lacches as the same is not a constitutional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience. Further, it was held that, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact emerged by delay on the part of the petitioners. 25. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact emerged by delay on the part of the petitioners. 25. Similar issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in "Londhe Prakash Bhagwan v. Dattatraya Eknath Mane and others, (2013) 10 SCC 627 " , wherein the Apex Court while deciding a service dispute highlighted the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise power when the parties approached the Court at belated stage observed as follows: "In all these cases, the aggrieved person shall have a right to approach the Tribunal. Now, the sole question which falls for our consideration is: when an aggrieved person can apply before the Court, if no limitation is prescribed in the statute for filing an appeal before the appropriate forum. We have duly considered the said question. Even if we assume that no limitation is prescribed in any statute to file an application before the court in that case, can an aggrieved person come before the court at his sweet will at any point of time ? The answer must be in the negative. If no time-limit has been prescribed in a statute to apply before the appropriate forum, in that case, he has to come before the court within a reasonable time. This Court on a number of occasions, while dealing with the matter of similar nature held that where even no limitation has been prescribed, the petition must be filed within a reasonable time. In our considered opinion, the period of 9 years and 11 months, is nothing but an inordinate delay to pursue the remedy of a person and without submitting any cogent reason therefor. The court has no power to condone the same in such case." (vide: "Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory, (2012) 8 SCC 524 , State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 " and "K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh, (1986) 4 SCC 531 ") . In all the judgments, it has been held that the application should be rejected on the ground of inordinate delay. 26. The consistent view of the Apex Court in various judgments referred above was that, for abnormal delay, which is unexplained disentitles the petitioner to claim such discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 27. In all the judgments, it has been held that the application should be rejected on the ground of inordinate delay. 26. The consistent view of the Apex Court in various judgments referred above was that, for abnormal delay, which is unexplained disentitles the petitioner to claim such discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 27. Here, the petitioner did not give any explanation for the substantial delay in making application and approaching this Court. Therefore, on account of unexplained delay, the petitioner is disentitled to claim relief from the authorities. Conveniently, the petitioner did not claim relief of correction of date of birth, but requested to set aside the endorsement dated 24.10.2019 issued by respondent No.4 as it is contrary to the report of Mandal Revenue Inspector, Tadipatri. 28. Respondent No.4 issued the impugned endorsement with the following reason. "As per orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. W.P.No.8002 of 2019 dated 16.07.2019. The applicant has submitted certain documents in support of his date of birth as 05.05.1952 such as (1) Affidavit, (2) Kundali and Jathakam by one Sri Varadachari, Astrologer, (3) Kundali Jathakam issued by Sri Raghavendra Jyothisyalam, Bondaladinne. He has also submitted non availability issued by the concerned registrar Birth Death. Whereas his date of birth is 01.07.1950 as per SSLC marks list." 29. Recording the above reason, the application of the petitioner was examined and rejected after conducting necessary enquiry. 30. The basis for request of the petitioner is Kundali and Jathakam written by Sri Varadachari, Astrologer and Sri Raghavendra Jyothisyalam, Bondaladinne. These two documents cannot be relied on for altering the date of birth of the petitioner after more than 50 years as the same is impermissible even according to G.O.Ms.No.1263, Education dated 06.05.1961. Therefore, rightly respondent No.4 rejected the request and issued endorsement impugned in the petition. The duty of respondent No.4 is to conduct enquiry and submit report to registering authority, but not competent to register the birth after 70 years as Kundali and Jathakam can never form basis for sending report as to birth. 31. The main reason for seeking such alternation of date of birth, which prompted him to file the writ petition, is the sentiment as averred in paragraph No.6 of the affidavit. 32. Now, the petitioner is aged 70 years and retired from Government service on 30.06.2008. 31. The main reason for seeking such alternation of date of birth, which prompted him to file the writ petition, is the sentiment as averred in paragraph No.6 of the affidavit. 32. Now, the petitioner is aged 70 years and retired from Government service on 30.06.2008. He averred in the affidavit that he will not claim any benefits from the Government. Therefore, when the rights of the petitioner are not infringed on account of action of respondent No.4, on the ground of such sentiment, the Court cannot exercise power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Alteration of date of birth is without any purpose, except sentiment of the petitioner stated in the affidavit. Therefore, to satisfy the purpose of the person, who approached the Court based on his sentiments, the Courts are not supposed to issue Writ of Mandamus as claimed by the petitioner. The parties must maintain some restraint in making such vexatious writ petition before the Courts for no purpose. If these writ petitions are entertained and issued directions as claimed by the petitioner, the Courts will be flooded with such useless requests based on sentiments or to decide academic questions. Therefore, restraint must be maintained while entertaining a petition to decide sentimental questions or academic questions in the absence of infringement of any fundamental right or principles of natural justice. Therefore, on account of impugned endorsement, Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner. 33. Viewed from any angle, the request of the petitioner to alter the date of birth and register the same in the birth register at the age of 70 years i.e. after 12 years from the date of his retirement from Government service is without any purpose and it does not amount to infringement of fundamental right, constitutional right or human right of the petitioner. Hence, I find no ground to issue a Writ of Mandamus. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 34. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay and laches and disentitlement legally. No costs. 35. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.