K SRIDHAR REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner at present is working as Deputy Manager (Statistics) at Bhagyanagar Region of the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner joined the services of the Corporation as Traffic Apprentice Grade-2 on 1-6-1961 and after the completion of the training he was appointed as Traffic Inspector Grade-2 on 1-12-1962. At the time of his entry into service the petitioner produced the original higher secondary certificate issued to him by the School Authorities showing his date of birth as 11th October, 1937. Even in the application dated 1-5- 1961 filed by the petitioner seeking employment, the petitioner had mentioned his date of birth as 11th October, 1937. The Management of the Corporation made entries relating to the date of birth of the petitioner accordingly on the basis of the certificate produced by the petitioner. After a long lapse of 21 years, the petitioner in the year 1982 made a representation to the respondent contending that his actual date of birth is 11th October, 1938 and not 11th October, 1937 and requesting the management to alter his date of birth accordingly in the Service Register. The said request of the petitioner was rejecting by the Chief Personnel Manager of the Corporation by proceedings dated 4th October, 1982. Further request to the vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation to alter the date of birth was also rejected by his proceedings dated 22-12-1993. Against the said order of the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board through the Managing Director. The Managing Director refused to forward the appeal papers to the Board at its meeting. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 8397 of 1994 complaining that the Managing Director was deliberately refusing to place the appeal papers before the Board for its consideration. Therefore, this Court by its order dated 5-8-1994 made in the said writ petition directed the Managing Director to forward the appeal papers of the petitioner before the Board within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and further directed the Board to take a decision on the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal papers from the second respondent, ie. the Managing Director. In pursuance of the said direction, the appeal of the petitioner was considered by the Board of Directors of the Corporation at their meeting held on 8th September, 1994 and the same was rejected by passing Resolution No.149. The decision of the Board was communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager (Estb.) by communication dated 5-10-1994. The present writ petition is directed against the said communication.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only provision which provides for alteration of date of birth of the employees of the Corporation is Regulation 19 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. (Service) Regulations, 1964 (for short the Regulations). Regulations 19 is as under: (1) Every person on entering the service of the Corporation shall declare his date of birth which shall not differ from any declaration, express or implied, made by him for any public purpose before entering such service. For this purpose the date of birth as recorded in a School or College certificate shall be adopted without any modification. (2) (a) When the year or year and month of birth are known are but not the exact date, the 1st July, or the 16th of that month, respectively shall be treated as the date of birth. (b) Where the person concerned is unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of his age, it should be assessed by a Medical Officer of the Corporation and the age so assessed or the age as declared by the person, whichever is more, shall be accepted as final and the employee shall be assumed to have completed that age on the date of attestation by the Medical Officer.

(3.) The date of birth as determined by the appropriate provisions of the preceding Clauses shall be recorded in the Service Register. The date so recorded shall be held to be binding and no alteration of such date shall be permitted subsequently. It shall however be open to the Corporation in the case of Class I or Class II employee and to the Managing Director in the case of any other employee under his administrative control to cause the date of birth to be altered (i) where in his opinion it had been falsely stated by the employee to obtain an advantage otherwise inadmissible, provided that such alteration shall not result in the employee being retained in service longer than if the alteration had not been made; or (ii) where in the case of illiterate staff, the Managing Director is satisfied that a clerical error has occurred. 3. Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 19 makes it very clear that the date of birth as determined after going through the procedure contemplated in Sub-regulation (1) and (2) shall be recorded in the Service Register of an employee and the date so recorded shall be held to be binding and no alteration of such date shall be permitted subsequently. (Emphasis is supplied by the Court). However, Sub-regulation (3) itself empowers the Board as well as the Managing Director to consider the case of any employee under their respective control and alter the date of birth of such employee only under two circumstances: (i) where in his opinion it has been falsely stated by the employee to obtain advantage otherwise inadmissible, provided that such alteration shall not result in the employee being retained in service longer than if the alteration had not been made; or (ii) Where in the case of illiterate staff, the Managing Director is satisfied that a clerical error has occurred