Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1534 (AP)

R. Ramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-11-06

HARINATH NUNEPALLY

body2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER : The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to rectify the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Records as 03.03.1969 instead of 01.07.1967. 2. The petitioner was selected as Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1998 and he joined as an Apprentice Teacher in Gollagudem Primary School in Tiruvuru Mandal of Krishna District. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that soon after joining service the petitioner informed the Mandal Educational Officer that the age of the petitioner was wrongly entered in the Service Record and that the petitioner was born on 03.03.1969 as is mentioned in the S.S.C. Certificate. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner was informed by the Mandal Educational Officer that the date of birth correction can be done only after completion of apprentice period. It is further submitted that after completion of apprentice, the petitioner approached the Mandal Educational Officer seeking correction of date of birth. The petitioner made a representation on 12.08.2010 seeking change of date of birth, however, there was no rectification of the Service Record as requested by the petitioner. It is also submitted that, the petitioner intended to apply for Group-I Examinations and other competitive examinations. However, inaction on part of the respondents in altering the date of birth as desired by the petitioner has denied the petitioner opportunity to appear for competitive examinations. 4. It is submitted that, G.O. Ms. No.165, Finance and Planning (Fin.Wing-F.R.I) Department, dated 21.04.1984 contemplates the procedure to be adopted for effecting rectification of date of birth in Service Records. However, the process was not followed by the respondents. 5. The learned Government Pleader for School Education, submits that the petitioner having joined the service in the year 1998 has come up for the first time on 12.08.2010 with a request to rectify his date of birth in the Service Record. The inordinate delay on part of the petitioner in approaching the respondent authorities seeking rectification of his date of birth is unexplained. The petitioner approached the respondent after 12 years of service. It is submitted that, no employee can claim that their date of birth was erroneously recorded in service after lapse of more than 10 years. 6. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the following judgments Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp. The petitioner approached the respondent after 12 years of service. It is submitted that, no employee can claim that their date of birth was erroneously recorded in service after lapse of more than 10 years. 6. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the following judgments Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155; Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja and others, (2021) 12 SCC 27 and in the matter of Sanyasi Rao v. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, WP No.26262 of 2012, decided on 30.01.2024, of High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. 7. The petitioner has filed a copy of Birth Certificate issued on 13.08.1994, the same is issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on G.O. Ms. No.165, Finance and Planning (Fin.Wing-F.R.I) Department, dated 21.04.1984, whereby, the Government prescribed the procedure for Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education and perused the material available on record. 9. As seen from the representation of the petitioner dated 12.08.2010, the petitioner has approached the respondent authorities for the first time in writing after a period of 12 years of service. In the representation, the petitioner has also narrated the academic achievements and also the problems he faced on his personal front. In the same representation, the petitioner has stated that in the year 2010, he could withstand and come out of problems and as such has focused on seeking rectification of his date of birth as recorded in service register. 10. In the matter of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others v. R. Kirubakaran (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the issue of correcting the date of birth of the public servant is concerned, it has chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in the process. As such, correction of date of birth entry cannot be done in a casual manner. As such, correction of date of birth entry cannot be done in a casual manner. In the matter of Karnataka Rural Infra Structure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the effect of delay and latches when seeking correction of date of birth is adverse to the claim of the petitioner, as the employee was found not entitled to seek correction of date of birth after an unexplained delay. 11. The Division Bench of Telangana High Court in the matter of Sanyasi Rao v. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh (supra), has also considered the similar issue where an employee sought a rectification of his date of birth. The Division Bench has considered the issue and held that the rules framed by the State Government would not permit for alteration of date of birth on the basis of any judgment of decree of Court. 12. The State has passed the following Rules for the benefit of its staff where rectification of Service Record is necessitated on account of clerical errors and in this regard the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 (for short, 'the Rules, 1984') were framed. The applicable rules are 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 bona fide clerical error, under the orders of the Government.] [Subs. by G.O. Ms. No.94, Fin. & Plg., dated 15.03.1994] 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.] [Added by G.O. Ms. No.383, Fin. & Plg., dated 16.11.1993 w.e.f. 21.04.1984] 3. No.383, Fin. & Plg., dated 16.11.1993 w.e.f. 21.04.1984] 3. Procedure in recording date of birth of employees appointed before the commencement of these rules.-The date of birth of a Government employee who has been appointed before the commencement of these rules and whose service register has not been opened, shall be recorded in the manner laid down in Rule 2. 4. Alteration of date of birth in past cases.-Rule 4 renumbered as sub-rule [(1)] No Government employee in service, before the commencement of these rules;- (a) Whose date of birth has been recorded in the Service Register in accordance with the rules applicable to him; or (b) Whose entry relating to date of birth became final and binding under the rules in force prior to the commencement of these rules, shall be entitled to claim alteration of his date of birth. [(2) No subsequent variation of the date of birth in the school records shall be relevant for the purpose of service nor shall such variation be a valid ground for ordering an alteration of the date of birth by any Court, Tribunal or other authority.] [Added by G.O. Ms. No.94, Fin. & Plg., dated 15.03.1994] 5. Cases pending on the date of commencement of these rules.-The cases in which the Government employees have already applied for alteration of their date of birth and which are pending on the date of commencement of these rules, shall be dealt with on the basis of recorded age in School and College records at the time of entry into service. 6. Effect of the Rules.-No rule made or deemed to have been made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India shall, insofar as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of these rules, shall have any effect. 13. On the facts of this case, the petitioner's attempt to seek rectification of his date of birth in the Service Record is made for the first time on 12.08.2010. In the said representation, the petitioner has admitted that, after joining service he underwent a series of personal problems and that only in the year 2010 he could withstand and stabilize himself. As such attempts to substantiate his inordinate delay in seeking the rectification by citing his personal problems in life. 14. In the said representation, the petitioner has admitted that, after joining service he underwent a series of personal problems and that only in the year 2010 he could withstand and stabilize himself. As such attempts to substantiate his inordinate delay in seeking the rectification by citing his personal problems in life. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, no employee can seek rectification of his date of birth in the Service Record as a matter of Fundamental Right. The cascading effect of alteration in date of birth of an employee is severe and impacts the service and career of several others who are waiting after long and unblemished service for their promotions or other service benefits. 15. The attempt of the petitioner seeking rectification of his date of birth in the Service Records in a casual manner cannot be considered by the respondents in an equally casual manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected granting reliefs to the employees seeking corrections in date of birth in Service Records in a casual manner. 16. The case of the petitioner cannot be considered for grant of the relief as the same is contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. 17. Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.