CH. CHINNAKISHORE VENUKOTI Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER & DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, BESIDE TELEPHONE BHAVAN, LAKDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner states that he was born to his parents on 04.09.1982 in Christian Hospital, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. The Medical Officer gave a certificate on 11.09.1983 showing his date of birth as 04.09.198 His date of birth was entered in the register of births maintained by the Warangal Municipal Corporation. He also obtained a certificate from the said Corporation on 03.09.2016 showing the same date of birth. His parents sent him to a private teacher for education and later on his father admitted him in III standard in St.Johns High School (English Medium) at Kazipet during the year 1989. However, his father mistakenly entered his date of birth as 04.05.1982 instead of 04.09.198 He passed SSC in 1997, Intermediate in 1999, B.Sc. in 2002 and M.Sc. (Microbiology) in 2004 from Kakatiya University with the said date of birth. It is his case that his incorrect date of birth was continued in the academic records due to wrong entry made at the time of admission in the school. Now he states that he is preparing for Civil Services Examination for which the upper age limit is 35 years. He further states that he has submitted an application on 06.09.2016 to the Principal of St.Johns High School, Kazipet, for correction of his date of birth, and the same was forwarded to the Deputy Educational Officer, Warangal, through letter dated 08.09.2016. The Deputy Educational Officer submitted a report to the second respondent on 15.09.2016 stating that the mistake occurred due to the entry made by the clerk at the time of admission on request of the parent and Principal from St. Johns High School, Kazipet, Warangal District. The second respondent, in turn, forwarded the said report to the first respondent through letter dated 19.09.2016. The first respondent issued proceedings on 26.09.2016 communicating to the second respondent, who in turn communicated to the petitioner on 04.10.2016 rejecting the request for correction of date of birth, as the application for correction was made after lapse of 19 years and not within the stipulated time of 3 years as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms. No.430, Education Department, dated 31.1199 Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents stating that as per G.O.Ms. No.430, dated 31.12.1992, the Director of School Education is empowered to entertain and effect correction or alterations in respect of applications for correction or alteration of date of birth in the completed certificates of SSLC/HSC/HS(MP)/SSC. But, the said request cannot be entertained after a period of three years from the date of completion of the course. The registration of births and deaths is governed by the Registration of Births and Deaths Act and it has nothing to do with the correction of dates of birth entered in the certificates. In G.O.Ms. No.383, dated 16.11.1993, it was clearly stated that in respect any proceedings before the Government or any Court, Tribunal or other authority for any alteration of date of birth in the service records, the decree of the Civil Court in regard to alteration of date of birth in the School or the University records or the contents in the judgments leading to such decree or the effect of its implementation shall not be taken into consideration in derogation to the rules. It is also stated that the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V.Venugopalan (1994 (6) SCC 302 held that the administrative decision cannot be overruled by the Tribunal. In Chief Medical Officer Vs. Khadeer Khadri 1995 (2) SCC 82=1995 (29) ATC 196, it was held that the request for change of date of birth can be considered only if it is filed within the statutory period. In Board of Secondary Education of Assam Vs. Mohd.Sarifuz Zaman 2003 (12) SCC 408=2003 (10) SCALE 892, it was held that three years period provided in the Regulations is a reasonable period. Since the petitioner failed to apply for correction within the specified period, his request was not considered.