R. Narender Rao v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. RAVI MAHENDI R, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER @ HOI{,BLE SRI WSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITIO I{ No.366 7 0F 2019 ORDER: The facts of the case are : petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in Public Health & Municipal Engineering Department .and was allotted to' G.H.M.C. in 1986. He joine$drftY on22-0l-19136; at that time' his date of birth *"" i."Jta.a as 16-O8-1962 both in figures and words. Later on, he was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer in which post he is presently working. It is the case of p€titioner tl:rat Bona fide Certificate

1.1. issued by Modern K.G. & Upper Primary School, Kachiguda' Hyderabad where he studied from Class I to VII, Birth Certificate issued by Jalgaon Municipal Council and relevant Employee details issued by tire authorities of Re spondent Corporation way back on 17-08- 1994 (both in figures and words) and 20-08-1996 etcetera would go to show that his date of birth is 16-08-1962. Subsequently, pursuant to A P' Reorganization Act 2014, petitioner is stated to have submitted option for Telangana State along with aI the service particulars \ \ \ \ 2 ", o'o"t mendoning date of birth as 16_0g_1962. At t rat time, tfis loa respondent had scrutinized the factua.l acc:u -. (y and certified the opfion form and documents submittr:r by him and communicated rhe verified data to the GA (l R) Department, Govemment of Andhra pradesh and now he i; laking U, tum and stated that his date of birth is l4.O2.tg( 1. Thereafter, Government of Andhra pradesh utd.e No .i ication dated 2Z.Og.2OlS issued tentative allocation lists r I State cadre employees of ENC pu health consequenuy tI e Govemment of India, Ministry €rsonnel, pG and pensions, )epartment of Personnel 6 Training issued Order dated j: .09.2016 by exercising powers conferred under Sectio n t 7 (2) of A.p. Reorganizatio n Arr,2Ol4 allocating him to Tela:ngz na Shte and his name reflected at Sl. No.22 with date of birth so a.lso in A.p. Gazette. 1.2. Strangely, now after 32 years, the 2n,r Respondent uide Memo dated l7_O l-2olg as there is a discre: rncy in the date of birth, asked pedtioner to produce S.S. l. Origina_l Certilicate, stating that failure to submit the said Ce rilicate for would be presumed thar date of birth is 14-O2_1961 and entrSr in the Service Register and other records would be << rrected as above date of birth. Similarty, Memo dated (, 1.'4_2ot8 .,r urnn as 16'08'1962, *:yt // l I ) i l EH. 3 was issued to which petitioner is stated to have submitt€d representation on 20-04-2018. Notwithstalding tlre same, yet a-nother Memo dated l6-05-2018 was issued stating that as per the records and the A.P. Gazrtte Notification dated O6-02-1986 his date of birth is 14-02-1961 and that if he does not submit original S.S.C. Certificate, tJ.e same should be treated as final notice.

1.3. Petitioner draws attention of this Court to Section 78 of the 2Ol4 Act which is as follows:- " 78-(1) Nothing in this section or in section 77 shall be deemed to affect, on or after the appointed day, t}e operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the union or any state; Provided that the conditions of service appli:able the appornt€d day in the case of any person d€emed immediately b€fore to have been allocated to the state of Andhra Pradesh or to th€ State of Telangana under Section 77 shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government.' Further, the competent authority has not issued orders altering the date of birth after due process of law and as such impugned proc€edings issued is totally unauthorizd, void ab initio.

1.4. While the matter stood thus, the 2od Respondent issued order dated O4-O|-2O19 tonfrrming his date o{ birttr as 4 14-02-1961. In the said proceedings, it is menti ,rled that the Student Verification Certificate issued by All I rints School, Gunfoundry a;rd as per Age Certifrcate issued by he Additional Joint Secretary, Director of Government E)xamination, Telangana, Hyderabad, his date of birth is 14-O2 !161. Without furnishing the above copies, the impugned plr ceedings are issued which is in violation of the principles of rr, tural jusLice. Aggrieved by the sarne, representation dated I /-01-2O19 is stated to have been issued to the l"t Resportrl .tt inter alia mentioning the above details including the fact thr t marriage of his parents took place on 1O-03-1961 and thertlrre, he could not have born on 14-02-1961 and enclosing copi:; of Passport, Pancard, Driving License, Aadhaar, etcetera. Ho r --ver, without considering the said representation the lst Respr ndent issued G.O. Rt. No. 161 dated l5-O2-2O19 stating his date of retirement as 28-02-2019 and the same has nt r essitated the filing of the present Writ Petition.

1.5. In Writ Petition No. 23O86 of 2003, r his Court by order dated 14-12-2017 held that alterations rr rde after 25 years is not permissible. The principle laid down irr the said Writ Petition applies to the facts of the present case. As per G.O. Ms. No.165 dated 2l-O4-1984, date of birth cannot bc , ltered by the 1 .,4,, 5 (@ employer also and that the principle that date of birth cannot be altered at the fag end of service would equally apply to tJle Employer.

2. In the counter filed on beha-lf of Respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that upon routine verihcation of Serrrice Books of some officers, it has come to notice that date of birth of petitioner was overwritten as 16-08-1962. His date of birth as per the Gazette notification No. 5A, dated 06-02-1986 at page No. 53 issued by the APPSC in which he was selected as Assistant Executive Engineer and in the seniority list published uide proceedings dated 2g-O9-2OlO, same date of birth i'e' 14-02-196l was mentioned. As S.S.C. certifrcate is the authentic document for entry of date of birt]r in the service book and to verify date of birth in case of discrepancy, petitioner was directed to submit the original certif-rcate for verifrcation by 31-O1-2O18 uide Memo dated 17-O1-2018, followed by reminder dated. 16-02-2018, but he failed to submit the same' A frnal notice was issued on O4-O4-2Ola, if certificate is not produced, it would be presumed that his date of birth is 14-02-1961 as per the Gazette Notifrcation No. 5A, dated O6-02-1986 ard all his records would be corrected as per the above date of birth' \ \ 6

2.1. Petitioner submitted representa:ion dated 2O-O4-2Ola stating that date of birth shown in tre allocation order dated 12.09.2016 given by the Departmer 1 ,:f Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, PG z.t <l Pensions, Govemment of India had become final and is not ,l.lsceptible to any correction to his detriment. Further, uidc lvlemo dated 16-05-20 18, petitioner was informed that rl rl.e of birth mentioned in linal allocation order cannot be <:nsiderecl as authenticated date of birth, hence, once agair directed to submit SSC Original certificate by 30-05-2018, fa I ng which the date of birth would be taken as per A.P. Gazett r Notification dated O6-02-1986 and the same would be re: rrded in the Service Book. However, he failed to submit iliC Original Certificate.

2.2. Therefore, the office of Responden s I and, 2 addressed the Principal, All Saints High Sc rool, Abids, Hyderabad to fumish the date of birth of petitio rcr wher€: he studied 8tl to lOft class from 511973 to 3/197 r. The Head Master issued Student Verification Certihcate datt:r l8- 12-2O 18 conlirming the date of birth as 14-O2-1961. Further, the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Nampa I .. Hyderabad confirmed the date of birth as 14-O2- 196 1. As th,r cl:rte ol birth / / ! i I I I 7 ,/" published in the APPSC gazEtte notification is matching with the date of birth certilied by All Saints' High School, Gunfoundry and Additional Joint Secretary, Director of Government Examination, Telangana and overwriting/corrections in service book, it was taken into view of account that the correct date of birth of petitioner is 14-02-1961. Accordingly, speaking orders were issued on O4-OL-2O19 to petitioner confirming his date of birth as 14-02-1961 and orders were issued to the Chief Accounts Officer, Oflice of Engineer-in-Chief (PH) for making necessary entries in ttre Service Book and accordingly, necessary entries were made in the Sewice Register, duly restoring the original entry of the date of birth i.e., 14-02-1961. Further, proposal was sent to Govemment uide l-etter dated 08-01-2019 for issue of notification of the officers who are going to retire during 2O19 including petitioner on 28-O2-2O 79.

2.3. Then, p€titioner submitted a representation along with enclosures to Government stating that marriage of his parents took place on 10-O3- 1961 and he was born at Janagaon on 16-O8-1962 and, enclosed the copies of date of birth the Statutory Authority certificat€ issued by Commissioner/ Registrar \ \ birth and death, Janagaon 8 Municipality in support of his claim. He also sub_: above date of birth was also entered in his Seni,: as Indian passport, Aadhar Card, etcetera. Th after careful examination of the issue, rejected th uide Memo dated 26-02_2O19. In view of the sr Petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel submits that in the school record, the date of birtl rs erroneously entered as 14.O2.1961, but itted that, the Book as well Government said request me, the Writ cr petitioner ,:I petitioner at the time of / l petitioner's entr5r into service, based on the ,leclaration, respondents accepted his date of birth as 16.0g.l, ()2 in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 165, dated 21.O4. 1984. He ; rbmirs rhar $vmg any opportunity r( petitioner, respondents, without AS Section date of birth cannot unilaterally alter the According to leamed counsel, petttloner. 't7 of the Reorgalisation Act, no State can any dec i ion to the disadvantage of an employee and in the inr tant case, petitioner's date of birth was already determined by r :sponden ts as 16.08.1962, therefore, the same cannot bc altc ed without giving any opportunity to him. He relies on the jud51 eent of thc Division Bench of this Court in p. pocharn r, q. o- prl. .;. .'::: ,a 9 Secretnry, Technico,t EUlucoitionl arrd submits that date of birth as entered in service register should not be changed unless there is unimpeachable evidence. Heard learned Government Pleader for Municipal 4. Administration and Urban Development on behalf of respondents.

5. Having perused the material on record and having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, it is evident that petitioner has not produced original SSC certifrcate to demonstrate his actual date of birth and also he has not produced the same to the authorities when he was asked to produce the same for verification and that he approached this .Court at the fag end of his career seeking correction of date of birth. Respondents having noticed certain alterations in respect of date of birth of petitioner, had given an opportunity to produce relevant documents, but he failed to do so. Respondents had therefore, addressed the Principal, All Saints High School, Abids to furnish the details of petitioner's date of birth where he studied 8s to 1Od class frorn 05/1973 to 03/1976. The Head Master conhrmed the date of birth as 14.O2t .1961. At the request of respondents, the Additional Joint ' zooal4 elr tsoloo; 10 Secretary, Director of Government Examinaticr, Telangana, Hyderabad had issued age certificate datel 03.01.2O19 conlrrming the date of birth as 14.02.1961. Sirr e the date of birth published in APPSC Gazr;tte Notifrcation is r ratching with the one provided by the All Saints School ald Al litional Joint Secretary, Director of Government Eiramination r -rd in view of the overwriting / correction in service book, the : ):rrect date of birth of petitioner was taken as 14.Q2.1961 anc accordingly, speaking orders were issued on O4.OL.2O|9 confi- ning the. date of birth as 14.02.1961 and orders were issuec[ to the Chief Accounts Ofhcer, Office of Engineer in Chief (Of ) for making necessary entries in the Service Book anc. accordingly, necessary entries were made in the Service . bgister duly restoring the original entry of the .date of birth i.: 14.O1.1961. Hence, it cannot be said tJrat petitioner was -'t tt given any opportunity and the judgment relied on by the kz rned counsel cited supra, is not applicable to the case on hancl.

6. In the light of the atrove, this Court loes not find any inlirmity in G.O.Rt.No. 161, dated 15.02.21) ,) issued by Respondents I and 2 insofar as retiring petition r with effect I from 28.O2.2Q19. The Writ petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 7 costs.

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. Sd/.B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER SwEprt-,'.3$iffii#15'.uTJ$'mlr:w..',:e*f "61oun Two CD CoPies To,

1. 2. 3 4 B M/PMK @ t I HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 ORDER WP.No.3667 of 2019 liES TA <. i,.J t 2 [ '.i8 ll]lb * -Dr S r e76,rl .'.1C DISMISSING THE WRIT PET]TION WITIIOUT COSTS Ks zf.lze .