T. Gangadhar. S/o Gangaram. ageq lqouJ 50 years v. l.TelanganaStateRoadTransportCorporation

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. SRUSHMAN REDD '. S.C. FOR TGSRTC .ZONE.1 The Court made the following: ORDER w ^t HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 4344 OF 2018 ORDER: Petitioner submits that pursuant to the noLification issued by the re spondettt Corporation ln I987, he was appointed as Driver. Theicafter, at Lhe insisLence of the 3'd respondent, for the purpose of calculating the date of superannuation, pctition(il sr.rbmitted S ll-C. Marl<s Memo u,hich reflected his datc <;f birr-ti as 08.04 1967. l{orvever, the 3'.i responcieut inforrned ll-iat his date ol birth as per Serwice Record u.as O2-O3- 196O. When petiiioner requcstcci thc 3'd respondent to correct his date of birth in his service record, the latter expressed in.,rbill"" lo clo so statillg th"t the I"t respondent u'as thc comllelcnt authori$u to correct the date of birth. Immediately, Petitioner is slatcd lo have submitted representation on 2 i - 10-20 I7, dutl'' enclosing a copy of the SSC Marks Memo, but respcrtldent authorilies ncithcr corrected the date of birth tror providcd any rcsponse. [t is slated that once SSC Marks Memo ts enclosed along with his representation, no prejudice u'ould be caused to respondents even if his date of birlh is corrccted. Due to the inactir:n of the respondents, petitioner contends, he is losing a lengthy service I 1 (' of seven. He thercfore, liled Writ Petition No. 384 , .l of 2017 and r,r,hile the samc is perrding considcration, the 3rd o il)ondent, by putting an ante datc, issued the impugncd not li:rrtion dated 0I-10-2017 on 18-11-2O17. Petitioner alleges r.tt tl're 3'd respondent is benl upon compelling him to ret; l''or. sen,ice ever-r though he rs left u,ith seven 1,ears of service , ,:r'.:l :rs per his actual date ol birlh, hc u,ould attain the age of s 11 t rarLntration t':rt 3l-O4-2O25. Thercfore, it is contended thar rl r inrpugned notification,Cated O1 1,O-2O17 is mala fide and dO, .i rroL srand to judiciai scru tiny.

2. Respondents, through their Cou r.r hffidavit, denied the averments made by Petitioner. 11 :; stated that Petitioner never mentioned or enclosed hr. ,:ducational qualificatiolrs at the Lime of Application. irr facl , r:: mcntioncd his date of birlh in Lhe Application as 02 03 1 (r '.( ) and state d that he could onl), read and u.rite. It is further st:,. ('. 1 thztt as per the Service Regulations. upon entering empkr I'rcnt of the Corporation, employcc shall deciare date of birth :r. recorde c1 in a school or college certificate without an1, mocli. r'irtion. In the cvent of thc ,smployec being unable to furni.Lr thc above- mentioned satisfactory proof in support of the dat oi birth, he / she shall be subjected to assessment bv a Mcr :: ; I Officer to I t I w J determine the age as per Rcgulation 19 o[ the A P S'R T C' Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 (for short, 'Regulations')' Therefore, petitioner was subjccted r-o medicai examination at APSRTC Hospital Tarnaka, wtrere his age was fixed as 27 yeats u,ith date of birth as O2-O|J 1960 as pt-r Ccrtificate No 36187, dated O5 0i-1988. Responclcnts strongly conlend that Peti[ioncr never mad.e any objection ol protcsl' about his clate of birth being entered into the Service Record as 02-03 1960 cailicr' It is emphasized thaL Petirioner had mentionecl his date of birth as 02-O3- 1960 in his Applicalion form, his declaration forms under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 197 I, and Employees Provident Funcl Declaration ln his latest Nomination Form under tht: APSRTC Staif Benevolent Cum Thrift Fund, Hyderabad, dated 03-04-2013, riuring veriltcation of date of birth in 2O 1 I . he submitted a bon-a fide certilicale dated 13-07-2O I 1 issued b1' t hc Hcad Masterr, M P Primarl School, Tadpakal, Morthad, Nizamabad, stating that his d'ate ol birth is 02-03-1960. I{e sullmittcd declaration of lamill' members for privileges on 02-O 1-20 17 and driving liccnse wherein date of birth was mentioned as 02-03-1960 He never submitted SSC marks memo until hc llroduced the same along with his representation on 2l-lO-2O17 . I I 1 e, Respondents also draws at[ention o t te Court that Pe l-itioner obtained his driving licensc on 17-t .1 1981, u,hich mcans thal he lvould lrave bcen aged i4 years anil 9 d ar..s trt Lhat timc, ie. less than the prescribed age limit ot 18 years for I r>btaining zr license and 21 vearrs and above ,r obterining a )..cavy vehicle driving license. At the time :r: joining tl-re L)orpolation, he mentjoned date of birth as 02- l-i96O. u.hich :rrr:iin,. he rvirs age<l 27 l,errrs. [lc,rt,evt:r., ii tl-re r.L e ol l,,irth as r:laimcd by the Petitioner is taken as O8-04- 1967 h: would har.e l;cen agecl ,lround 2O years ancl 9 months, wh, l- is less th:rn tJ-re prescr-itred age iimit of 25 years firr being cor r;rdered for thc posL of Drir.er. It rvould mean that he suppress d his age and <:oncealed the lact that he u,ars underzrge r, [r k: obt:rining r'rnpit>r,incnt lr'tth the Respondent Corporation. -l t-s action of [)ctriioi'rcr, accolding to rcspondents, u-oulc1 ]eac :r. violartion of Scn,ice Rcgulations of the Corporation and rendr . .rim liable lor ; r'lir,n rrnder thr Regulations. Rcspondenrs rely on Reguriatiol I g of the Emplol,ees (Service) Regulations, 1964, which sti: :e s that .Every person on entering the scrv-ice of the Corporatio.L ;ltall declare his date of birth v,,hich shall not differ from a .,. Ceclaration, cxpress or implied, made by him for any public ,,_rpose belore I I F- ) entering such service. For this purpose the clate o[ birth as recorded in a School or College certificate shall bc adopted '*,ithout any modihcation'. It is asserted that heid Petitioner submitted his SSC marks memo at the time of .joining, his candidaturc would have bccr-i rejecte<l becattsc he i't'ould have been underage for being considered for ihc post o[ Driver- Respondents allege that Petitior-rer, t'ith a dishorlest intcntion to cheat the Corporation, declareC his dzrte oI birth as 02 03- 1960 to gain employmcnt. Ha\,ing benefitecl b.1' dcclaring his date of birth as 02-03 1960, nori' Ile c:anl-rr)t turlr :iround ancl state that correct date o[ birth is OA-O4-1967 to continuc in service much longer than his actual ciate of superannuation as per the Service Record. Finally, it is stalecl Lhat Petitioner, at the fag end of service, made representation datcd 21-i0 2017 to Respondents t and 2. Ho\.ever, relirernenl notification ',\'as issued on 01-10-2017 which shows tl-rerL hc atpproached this Court with unclean hands and is not entitled to alry relicf.

3. Heard Sri G. Rajesh, learned coutrsel for petitioner as well as Sri N. Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsci for the Corporation.

4. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, it is evident that Petitioner's plea for correction of date o[ birth and I I 6 ccnsequential exlension of service rests primarih ,)t SSC Marks Mcmo. uhicrh hc claims u,as submitted at the tir r. .f his injtial .rirpoirlnt:nt Ii,111'1...9t, the conprehensive r rrl t.onsistcnt rr.,iclr:r'ice presr:nir:d b), resltondents stronglv ni I t,ts ihc said ciaim. Rcscoltcicni s hirve unequivocally statcd h I l)etitioncr, i r Iris Applir:ation r,.rrnr, explicith, mel]tioned his rr-r' of birrh as 02-03 i960 a-nrl me rt:lv st:rted his ability to "rr rr ancl writc,', r..,iI irol-ll- anv m(]rrion o[ i:clucational quaiihcat jon. : rLch as SSC. '1'his crucial discrc:pancy underrnines the ve rl ior rndation of Petrtioner's iLrgumcut thaL incorrect date of birth ,: -< a 'mi-staKe ljr-ire'i\ Jn lhc pat l ol thc then respondent authL .-t,es;.' If SSC Nlarks Memr:. indicating birth date as 08-04 19 '/, ivas indccd srrbrnitted i).1 thc oirtsei, it is highly improl-, rl le that the C oroor.rtion wouicl hirvc overlooked such a signilir il I t document arrci proceeded trr rccrtrcl a different date of birth. a. Secotrrll'". respondents providec sulrstantial d c-,c:,irn cntar-,, e lrclcr-rce, u,hich has a melttion ir lte ,:ountcr, clt-tnon strtrtit-rg Pctitioncr's consistent acc p:rncr: and affjrmarion of clale of birtl-r 02-03-1960 through, Lrt his tenure with the Corltoral.ion. 'lhis continuous and unbt. )[.en chain of dr:clarations ancJ rfoctrments, spanning decad s of service, estabiishes th:rt Petitioner was fully au,are c and indeed I I w' -'r 7 acknowledged the date of birth recorded in his service record. His belated production of Marks Memo in 2017 , only when his superannuation was imminent, raises serious questions about tlrc bona frdes of his claim. Petitioncr cannot approbate and reprobate. He cannot benefit from a particular date of birth lbr entry into service and then, at the time of retirement, claim a different date of birth to exlend his tenure.

6. Thirdly, as per respondents' submissions, pctitioner obtained his Driving License on 17-04-1981. If his dare of birth u,as 08 04 t967 , he rvould have been approximately 14 veiirs and 9 days old at the time of obtaining licence, which is weil below the prescribed age limit of 18 years for obtaining a ciriving license and 2l years for a heav-v vehicle driving license. Further, at the time of joining the Corporation, il his date of birth r,r,as 08-04-1967, he rvouid have been around 2O years and 9 monrhs old, which is iess than the prescribed age limit of 25 years for the post of Drive r within the Corporation. These facts strongly suggest that if Petitioner's date of birth was 08-04-1967, he would have been underage and ineligible for employment as a Driver with the Corporation. Regulalion 19 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, clearly stipulates that Every person on entering the service of the I I t t I 8 ClorporaliL;n shall declare his date of birth rvhich rl :Jl not cliffer lrom an1, declaration, express or implied, made :l/ him for any pi;bilc purpo:;e bcfore enrering such service. Fo: t]ris purpose thc <izrte ol brrth as recorded in a School or CoJ r11e ccrtihcate shall be adopted rvrthout an./ modification. Had t re SSC marks men-ro been s,;ltmitieci ;rnri accepted at the I :r e of entry- P,rtiiioner's ca ciidatrr.re, uncloubtecily, rvould havr k eer-r rejccted beirq undcreLge .. 7 . irui-. he rmoi.c, Petiticncr,s argument is thal ]-iis r.pre senLeliolt l\'a-s dated 2l iO-2O17 an: re.rirement no'ri ilca iion rvas iss ue d orr 0 i 1 O-20 t 7. This itself o dicates that notilication of retircment ilrececled petitioner,s at o npt to seek corrcction ir: hts dale cf' birth. Elven if 1,tre nc rrlication rvas folralh,. issu.ed ,.::^i ;it-l l 2O1,'i , Lhe date orr the nr :i icalicn (O i_ 10 20i7) suqgesis that the clecision for his rt: .ir ement r,r,as rn moiicn. 'lhe belated nature ol petitioner,s re prcsentation, .:t the \rer] fag end oi his setwice, e rpecially after ai.eaCy de cades of a,rcepting the recordeci date of birth, lt monstrates lat;k of promlltrr ess a nc1 goorl faith. From the abc ,,t , it is clear that Petitioner iailed to discharge his burden convir cingly. 8. F.ere, it is to be recordecl that perm tting such a correction at th is stage would not only cause Ej lrninistrative !w { 9 inconvenience but also potentially open a floodgate of similar claims, unse[tling settled service conditions. Petitioner's case falls squarely within this category. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion thar Writ Petition lacks merit' !t

10. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs' Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. NAGAMANI ANT REGISTRAR ...---::--.- SECTION OFFICER To,

2. One CC to SRI G. RAJESH, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N. SRUSHMAN REDDY, S C for TGSRTC-ZONE-1 [OPUC] Trrvo CD CoPies MP GJP 6 I I HIGH COURT DA T ED:2510612025 - :': =-.--... , F St^1 , _-:i -.4 'i'rt'' ..t,. .! i. l ': 1iCII ffi ',.' \r 1\ )\(' ORDER WP.t'{o.4344 of 2018 DISMISSING THE IAIRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS qLq