ORDER : Since the reliefs claimed in both the writ petitions are inter-linked and parties are one and the same, these writ petitions are dealt with jointly and disposed of by a common order. 2. Petitioner filed W.P.No.10177 of 2020 seeking the following relief: “… to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction and failure of the respondents in not conducting statutory enquiry relating to the petitioner’s date of birth in the service register as per the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 r/w Rule 2 (3) of Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording & Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently command the respondents to effect necessary changes on the Service Register as to the petitioner’s date of birth i.e. to alter the petitioner’s date of birth in the service register from 01.07.1960 to 10.05.1962 and direct the respondents to continue the writ petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years as per corrected date of birth with all attendant service benefits in the interest of justice…” 3. W.P.No.13047 of 2020 is filed seeking the following relief: “… to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Rt.No.546 dated 25.06.2020 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the G.O.Rt.No.546 dated 25.06.2020, issued by the 1st respondent and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant service benefits and also direct the respondents to provide all consequential benefits with retrospective effect in the interest of justice …” 4. (a) Facts, in brief, are that petitioner joined as Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records on 01.10.1990. At the time of joining into service, the department collected all the certificates relating to education qualification. Petitioner, later noticed that his date of birth was not entered in the service register and he submitted a written representation to the 2nd respondent on 10.06.1996 to record his date of birth in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording & Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 (for short “the Rules”). Petitioner, later noticed that his date of birth was not entered in the service register and he submitted a written representation to the 2nd respondent on 10.06.1996 to record his date of birth in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording & Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 (for short “the Rules”). Petitioner also submitted extract of birth register issued by the concerned authority. 2nd respondent vide Memo No.E1/4847/96 dated 28.08.1997 intimated that his date of birth as 01.07.1960, basing on secondary school certificate of the petitioner. 2nd Respondent neither conducted enquiry nor afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation under Rule 2 (3) of the Rules. (b) Aggrieved by the proceedings of 2nd respondent recording his date of birth as 01.07.1960, petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent, who in turn issued Memo No.91795/SS.2/97-4 dated 22.06.1998 directing the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 2 (3) of the Rules. In spite of petitioner’s approaching 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry relating to date of birth, no enquiry was conducted. (c) The date of birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth & Deaths does not contain the name of petitioner and further the in secondary school certificate the date of birth was mentioned as 01.07.1960, petitioner filed suit O.S.No.82 of 2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Podili. Suit was decreed on 27.09.2004. Petitioner submitted written representation dated 11.06.2018 to conduct enquiry regarding his date of birth and to change the date of birth in service register. As per the date of birth mentioned in the service register, petitioner would be superannuated by 30.06.2020. (d) Initially, petitioner filed W.P.No.10177 of 2020 seeking the relief referred supra and the matter was listed on 22.06.2020 and it was adjourned at the request of learned Government Pleader. Later, consequent upon outbreak of Covid-19, the matter was not listed. Meantime, 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.546 dated 25.06.2020 indicating the date of retirement of petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years as 30.06.2020. Impugning the same, W.P.No.13047 of 2020 is filed. 5. (a) 2nd Respondent filed counter affidavit and contended interalia that as per the service register, date of birth of petitioner is 01.07.1960. Petitioner herein submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent on 10.06.1996. Impugning the same, W.P.No.13047 of 2020 is filed. 5. (a) 2nd Respondent filed counter affidavit and contended interalia that as per the service register, date of birth of petitioner is 01.07.1960. Petitioner herein submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent on 10.06.1996. Basing on which, 2nd respondent issued a Memo to petitioner vide D.Dis.No.E1/4847/1996 dated 28.08.1997 informing that his date of birth is 01.07.1960, entered in the service register in terms of G.O.Ms.No.165 Finance and Planning (Fin.Wing FR-I) Department, dated 21.04.1984. Basing on the representation made by the petitioner, 1st respondent issued a Memo No.91795/SS.2/97-4, Revenue (SS) Department dated 22.06.1998 directing the 2nd respondent to take necessary action, however, the memo issued by the 2nd respondent dated 28.08.1997 was not set aside. (b) 1st Respondent vide Memo dated 24.07.2018 and 21.08.2018 while enclosing the representation of petitioner, requested the 2nd respondent to examine the issue and furnish a detailed report. Thus, a detailed report was submitted by 2nd respondent duly informing the facts. 10th class memo of petitioner was issued on 12.06.1977. Petitioner enclosed copy of birth certificate extract, in which date of birth is shown as 10.05.1962. The birth registration extract was issued on 20.06.1980 i.e. after getting 10th class memo. Petitioner himself confirmed that his date of birth has been recorded in service register as 01.07.1960. The date of birth entered in service register of petitioner, based on school certificate is final and it cannot be altered. As per the rules referred to supra, the date of birth entered in service register on the basis of school record or on the evidence produced at the time of entry into service shall be final and subsequent Civil Court decree cannot be taken into consideration for altering the date of birth of the employee. The 1st respondent issued memo dated 29.06.2020 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 12.08.2020 and eventually prayed the Court to dismiss the writ petitions. 6. Heard Sri T.V.P.Sai Vihari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 7. Undisputed fact, as per the material available on record, are that petitioner joined in service on 01.10.1990 and he submitted all certificates relating to education qualification at the time of joining into service. 8. 6. Heard Sri T.V.P.Sai Vihari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 7. Undisputed fact, as per the material available on record, are that petitioner joined in service on 01.10.1990 and he submitted all certificates relating to education qualification at the time of joining into service. 8. It is apt to extract Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording & Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 as follows: “2. Recording of date of birth : - (1) Every Government employee shall, within one month from the date on which he joins duty, make a declaration as to his date of birth. (2) On receipt of the declaration made under sub-rule (1), the Head of Office or any other officer who maintains the service record 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: Provided that in cases where the date of birth as determined under this sub-rule is different from the one declared by the Government employee concerned under sub-rule (1), he shall be given an opportunity of making a representation, before a final order is made. (3) Where a Government employee fails to make a declaration within the time specified in sub-rule (1), the Head of Office or the officer who maintains the service records shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available and after giving an opportunity of making a representation to the Government employee concerned, determine the date of birth of the employee within six months from the date on which the Government employee joins service. (4) 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 employees shall be stopped from disputing the correctness of such date of birth. (5) The date of birth as determined on the basis of the school records or any proof produced at the time of entering into service and entered in the service record shall be final and no subsequent variation of date of birth in the school records for any reason, shall be relevant for the purpose of service and on that basis the date of birth entered in the service records shall not be altered except in the case of bonafide clerical error, under the orders of the Government. 2A. "Civil Courts" Decree not to be taken into consideration:- In any proceedings before the Government or any Court, Tribunal or other authority for the alteration of date of birth in the service records, the decree of a Civil Court in regard to alteration of the date of birth in the School or the University records or the contents in the Judgment leading to such decree, or the effect of its implementation shall not be taken into consideration in derogation to these rules and it is hereby declared that these rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any Judgment decree or order of a Civil Court in regard to the alteration of date of birth in the School or the University records whether or not the Government is a party to such proceedings.” 9. A perusal of the rule extracted supra, an employee who joins in service shall within one month make declaration as to his date of birth. Upon such declaration, the concerned, after enquiry, make an order within four months from date on which the Government employee joins into service determining the date of birth. If the date of birth as determined under sub-rule (2) is different from the one declared by the Government employee concerned under sub-rule (1), he shall be given an opportunity of making a representation, before a final order is made. If the employee fails to make declaration within the time stipulated, the Head of office or the concerned, after considering such evidence as may be available and after giving an opportunity of making a representation, determine the date of birth within six months. If the employee fails to make declaration within the time stipulated, the Head of office or the concerned, after considering such evidence as may be available and after giving an opportunity of making a representation, determine the date of birth within six months. The date of birth determined basing on the school records or any proof produced at the time of entering into service shall be final and no subsequent variation of date of birth in the school records, shall be relevant for the purpose of service and on that basis the date of birth entered in the service records shall not be altered except in the case of bonafide clerical error, under the orders of the Government. 10. In the case on hand, petitioner joined service on 01.10.1990 and his date of birth was mentioned, in service records basing on school certificate, as 01.07.1960. Petitioner made a petition before the 2nd respondent on 10.06.1996. 2nd Respondent, in turn, issued Memo No.E1/4847/1996 dated 28.08.1997 that his date of birth was mentioned as 01.07.1960 as per secondary school certificate. Aggrieved by the said memo, petitioner filed appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by Memo dated 22.06.1998 observed that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner under Rule 2 (3) of the Rules. 11. After the order was passed by 1st respondent on 22.06.1998, petitioner made a written representation dated 11.06.2018 to the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry and for effecting necessary changes in the service register qua date of birth. Nothing is forthcoming from the affidavit as to why the petitioner did not make such representation before the concerned authority immediately after the order was passed by the 1st respondent on 22.06.1998. Petitioner having kept quiet for nearly two decades, made a written representation dated 11.06.2018, when his age of superannuation is nearing. 12. In N.Naga Raju vs. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2007 (1) ALT 727 , the Division Bench of the composite High Court observed as follows: “Once the date of birth is recorded on the basis of the school records or any proof produced at the time of entering into service, shall be final and no variation of date of birth in the school records for any reason shall be relevant for the purpose of service. Therefore, what Subrule (5) of Rule 2 of the Rules contemplates is that variation of date of birth in the school records, for any reason, cannot be made except in case of bona fide clerical error under the orders of the Government.” 13. In Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited and Ors. Vs. T.P. Nataraja and Ors., 2021 Law Suit (SC) 541 = MANU/SC/0680/2021, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “10. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under: (i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/Regulations applicable; (ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.” 14. In Sundilla Lingaiah Vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and Ors., 2016 (4) ALT 407 , the learned single Judge of the composite High Court held thus: “14. Before parting with the judgment, this Court deems it apposite to observe that the attitude and tendency of approaching the Courts for correction of Date of Birth and for further continuation in service, at the fag end of the service is on higher side in recent times when compared to past. In some deserving cases, such people are emerging successfully also. But there must be proper check and thorough verification of the claims, touching the alteration of date of birth, otherwise the same would be a burden on the State exchequer and the belated claims shall not be entertained. While considering the claims for correction of Dates of Birth, it is also incumbent and obligatory on the part of the authorities to simultaneously examine the corresponding age of the claimants at the time of passing the examinations such as Seventh Class, Tenth Class etc., also and their relevant eligibilities pertaining to the age, unless the same being exempted by competent authority, as on the date of such examinations. If any claimants are permitted for such examinations without the prescribed age, in the absence of such exemption of age granted by the competent authority, the same shall be a relevant criteria and factor for examining the claims for alteration of Date of Birth.” 15. In State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: "Change of date of birth in service record at fag end of career can be permitted only in exceptional cases, on irrefutable proof. The Court or Tribunal should be loath to allow correction of date of birth in service record of incumbent at fag end of his career unless it is satisfied by irrefutable proof of date of birth and that real injustice has caused to incumbent and claim is in accordance with procedure prescribed. Circumspection, caution and carefulness must be observed. The Government Servant cannot claim as a matter of right the correction of date of birth in service record after lapse of time fixed by employer, even if he has good evidence to establish erroneous entry - On facts held, High Court committed manifest error in allowing change of date of birth after lapse of over two decades notwithstanding that no period for filing such application was prescribed." 16. In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V.Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: "That when date of birth recorded after entry into the service and countersigned by the Government Servant, it would not be permitted to be challenged by the Government Servant at the fag end of the service.” 17. In P.S. Bheemeswara Rao Vs. Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education and Ors., MANU/AP/1193/2003, the learned single Judge of the composite High Court held thus: 11. A reading of the rules extracted above, reveals that the date of birth entered in the service records shall be final and any variation or alteration of the date of birth in the school record does not constitute any basis for corresponding change of birth in the service records. Even, the exception provided in Rule 2(5), is to be treated as the one relating to clerical error while making the entries in the Government records. That view becomes fortified with the language employed in Rule 4(2). There is a definite object behind these rules. Even, the exception provided in Rule 2(5), is to be treated as the one relating to clerical error while making the entries in the Government records. That view becomes fortified with the language employed in Rule 4(2). There is a definite object behind these rules. Instances of employees coming forward with the requests for alteration of dates of birth at the fag end of service are in the increase. It should not be forgotten that age of a person, while entering the service or when being selected will, certainly constitute an important factor, particularly when the selection is on the basis of merit. There may be instances where, if, the date of birth as altered were to have been taken into account at the time of appointment, the candidate would not have been eligible at all. In the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan, MANU/SC/0855/1994: (1994) 6 SCC 302 the Supreme Court held that it is impermissible for an employee to seek correction of date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service. The judgment of the administrative tribunal permitting such correction was set aside. 12. At the time of appointment, the candidates are required to give a declaration as to the correctness of various particulars furnished by them, including the one relating to date of birth. One can understand the situation, where a person considered for employment against an unskilled post is an illiterate or semiliterate person and his date of birth is entered not on the basis of record, but on guesswork without his knowledge. In such cases, there may be semblance of justification for such employees to come forward with a plea, if supported by records. The petitioner is a postgraduate. He was aware of his date of birth at least on the date when he was leaving his school. If there existed any basis for correction of his date of birth, he ought to have taken steps immediately. The date of birth cannot be permitted to gain importance only when a person is employed or when he is about to retire. In the case referred to above, the Supreme Court observed as under: "This Court has, repeatedly, been holding that the inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth. In the case referred to above, the Supreme Court observed as under: "This Court has, repeatedly, been holding that the inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth. The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. It is, common phenomenon that just before superannuating, an application would be made to the Tribunal or Court just to gain time to continue in service and the Tribunal or Courts are unfortunately unduly liberal in entertaining and allowing the government employees or public employees to remain in office, which is adding an impetus to resort to the fabrication of the record and place reliance thereon and seek the authority to correct it." 18. As referred to supra, in the first place, petitioner joined into service on 01.10.1990, however, he did not submit his date of birth certificate within one month, as mandated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Rules. The authorities basing on secondary school certificate recorded the date of birth of petitioner as 01.07.1960. Thereafter, the petitioner sought informed by way of representation and the same was furnished to him vide memo dated 28.08.1997. Petitioner filed appeal before the 1st respondent, who in turn requested the 2nd respondent to take action in consonance with Rule 2 (3) of the Rules. The 2nd respondent passed order by way of memo dated 22.06.1998. As can be seen from the record, petitioner submitted written representation dated 11.06.2018, after two decades. Thus, petitioner waited till fag end of his career and made representation. This conduct of the petitioner, in view of the expressions referred to supra, does not warrant exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Art 226 of the Constitution of India. Nothing is available in record except the oral assertion of the petitioner that he has been requesting the authorities regarding change of date of birth. 19. Though the learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner approached the civil Court and got decree, in view of Rule 2A of the Rules, the decree of a civil Court regarding alteration of date of birth of an employee, does not bind the employer. 19. Though the learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner approached the civil Court and got decree, in view of Rule 2A of the Rules, the decree of a civil Court regarding alteration of date of birth of an employee, does not bind the employer. Petitioner approached the authorities at the fag end of his career and later, approached this Court. In view of expressions in the cases of referred to supra, the claim of the petitioner for change of date of birth at the fag end of service cannot be entertained. 20. When the petitioner made a representation dated 11.06.2018, 1st respondent rejected the claim of petitioner vide memo dated 29.06.2020. However, the said proceedings are not challenged before this Court. 21. In view of the discussion made supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no merits in both the writ petitions and they are liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.