Vasam Venkateswar Reddy, l.A.S v. Director of State Audit

Heard Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri G. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for Central Government, appearing on behalf of respondent No.6,

2. The Detitioner aDproached the Court seekinq Draver as under: "...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. declaring the letter No.25015/O2/2O2O - AIS - Il(Pension) dated 73107/2023 issued by the 6th respondent, which was communicated by the 5th respondent by Memo No.768lSpl-A/A7/2020 dated 8.2.2023 including letter No.768/SpIA-AL/2O2O-1 dated 74.11.2022 addressed by the 5th respondent to 6th respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, u nconstitutiona I violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 2 of Andhra Pradesh/Tela nga na Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth), Rules 1984, issued in G.O.Ms No.165 Finance and Planning Department dated 2t.4.LgB4 as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Case of High Court of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Sanyasi Rao reported in 2012(1) SCC 674 and set aside the same and issue consequential direction to direction to the respondents to forthwith correct/alter, re-enter the date of birth of the petitioner from 21.04.1967 to 27.O4.7969 in the service register of the petitioner and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner till attaining the age of superannuation based on the date of birth of the petitioner as 21.04.1969 instead of 2L.O4.7967 with all consequential benefits, and pass... ". I 1 2 SN, J wp-20324 2023 -t nd Alteration

3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is tha: the petitioner was appointed on 01.12.1997 as Assistant Au 1it Officer by APSCC under Group-I services under the jurisdi: ion of the 1,r respondent. When 1't respondent recorded the ci te of birth of the petitioner as 21.04.7967, the petitiorr :r made a representation on 27.1.2.1997 i.e within one mc nth from the date oF his appointment as per Rule 2 of Andhra Pradesh/Telangana public Employment (Recording i of Date of Birth) Rules, 19g4 seeking change of pert of birth as 21.04.1969 instead of 2t.04.Lg67. I authorities had not taken any action on the said rr: Later on the petitioner got selected by then AppSC t I Services and appointed as Deputy Collector on 25. subsequenfly on t4.02.2007 the petitioner made a representation to the then Chief Commissione . of Land Administration, A.p., Hyderabad for change of petit fner,s Date of Birth as 21.04.1969 instead of 27.04.L967 . T..t r petitioner also made a representation to the 6th respondent in,: u6;nn 6n.", Secretary to Government, Telangana State with e request to change his Date of Birth as 21.04.1969, however to t re su rprise owever. the )7.2007 and tioner's date nder Group- rresentation. 7 I' - 3 SN, J wp 20321_2023 of the petitioner the 6th respondent issued letter v/de letter No.25015/02/2020-Als-il (Pension) dated 13.01.2023 which was communicated by the 5th respondent by Memo No.76BlSpl- A/Al/2020, dated 08.02.2023 including letter No.76815pl-A- All2O2O-L, dated 14.11.2922, rejecting the request of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner presented the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED TH E REC ORD:- (A) The orde r imouqned dated 13.O1.2023 issued bv Secreta rv to DeDa ment of Per onnel and Traininq of Personnel. Public Grievances and Penslons Minist Govern ent of India, i extracted hereu nder:- North Block, New Delhi, Dated 13.01.2023 To The Chief Secretary, Central Administration (Spl-A) Department, Government of Telangana, Telangana Secretarlat, Hyderabad - 5OO O22. Subject: Letter from Government of Telangana regarding change of date of birth of shri V. Venkateswarlu, IAS (TG: 2013). Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No.76BlSplA/AI/2O2O- 1, dated 14.7t.2022 on the subject mentioned above. 4 SN, J wp _20324 :2023

2. Rule 16-4 of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 provi, respect of a person appointed to IAS by promotior Civil Service, the date of birth as recorded in the ser\ other similar official document maintained by the con: Government shall be accepted by the Central Governrr of birth of such person. Further, Rule 16-4 ( ) of , Rules, 1958 provides that the date of birth as accel Central Government shall not be subject to any altere where it is established that a bona fide clerical mistal committed in accepting the date of birth. 3. The State Government has not found any i rstance of a bona fide clerical mistake in the requerr: of Shri Venkateswarlu under the provisions of AIS (D(:t lB) Rules, 1958, and, accordingly has recommended this t) lpartment to reject his request, es that in from State ce book or rrned State 3nt as date ,rs (DCRB) ted by the :ion except 3 has been

4. Therefore, the representation of Shri V. Venkat,: ;warlu, IAS (TG:2013) for alteration of his date of birth from 21 .)4.1967 to 21.04.1969 is found to be without merit for examir i tion/consi- duration by the Central Government. Your; sincerely, Sd/-xxx (Fi m Lakhan) Under Secretary to Governnt nt of India Tel: 011 23093479. (B) The subseouen rmDuone ord€!r vide Memo No.768 /soa.AlALl2(J2O, dated Oa.o2.2023 i;sued bv the Chief Secretarv to Government of Tetanqanp tse racted hereu nder: - GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPL.A) DEPART 4ENT Memo No.768/5pl.A/A1l2020, Dated C I .02.2023 Sub: IAS _ Sri V. Venkateswarlu, IAS - Alteration o. Date of Birth - Ref: 1. From Sri V. Venkateswarlu. IAS, letter dat(:, 1S,09.2020 Regarding , 77 -1 5 SN, J wp 20324 _2021

2. Frcm Sri V. Venkateswarlu, IAS, letter dated 30.09'2022 3. From the Under Secretary to GoI, DoPT, Letter No.25015/ 02/ 2020-ALS-II (Pension), dt . 13.01.2023. A copy of the reference 3'd cited is sent herewith to Sri V Venkateswarlu, IAS, Director Youth Services, for information' SANTHI KUMARI CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT To Sri V. Venkateswarlu, IAS, Director, Youth Services (w.e.) SF/SC. (c) Rule 2 of A.P. Public emDlovm ent (Recor ino & Alteration of Date of Bi h). Rule 1984 (G .O.Ms.No.1 65. Fin. & Plo. Deot., dt 2 L.4.L9 84, is extra cted hereunder:-

2. Recording of the 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 mad€ under sub-rule (1), the Head of Office or any other officer who maintains the service records 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 employees join service, determining the date of birth. Provided that in cases where the date of birth as determined under this sub-rule (1) 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. 6 SN, J wp 20324 2023 (D) Relevan t oortion heorder llTl ruoned yide L r re ecttnq s -A 7 the reDre entation of 1 2 20- 1 4.LL .2022 the D(: :itioner for r ation of Date of Birth. in oa rticu lar oare I N os.6 to 12 e h r un er: -

6. The said rules further provides in respect of .t that a government employee shall, within one montn frr joined duty, has to make a declaration as to his Jate,r rules provides for an enquiry on such declaration inO c r the date of birth after due notice and opportunity and ir any such declaration or claim within the time specified, entered in the service register shall be final' and b r government employee shall be stopped from disputing t of such date of birth. y other claim, m the date he birth and the termination of he absence ot the birth date ding and the le correctn ess Admittedly, Sri V.Venkateswariu has no invoked the plgyi.rign: of the Telangana.public Employment (RecorJ ng of Date of Birth) Rules,-1994 for any arteration in'nii aate o'i ui.tr.,, rs recorded in the service Register within the prescribed time and he )as chosen to raise the issue in the year 2022, after he was promote J to the Indian Adminrstrative Service in the year 201g.

8. The instructions of Government of India under Note 5/Note 6 below Rule 56 of the Fundamental nuf"s, p,.,;;-th"ith=-; date of superannuation of a government servant shall L e determinei with reference to the date of birth declared by the goverr ment servant at the time of appointment and. accepted by approp r ate authority on production of confirmed/documentary evidence s.rch as ssc certificate or birth register extracts and the date of birth s r aecta.eJ Ly the government servant and accepted by the approp- lte authority shall not be subject to any alteration, exclpt *i#tn" si nction of the Central Government, if a request in this regard is made |ithin 5 years . li?. gntry into government service a rid a bona fi J : mistake is established and the date of birth so altered will not ma < : him eligible to appear in any School, University or UpSC examir i tion. these instructions under FR 56 are applicable in .respeci of pe- ons who are 'the 7 7 SN, J wp_20324 _2023 initially appointed to Central Government service. They have no application to persons who are appointed to the Indian Administrative Service by promotion from the State Civil Service, in view of the express provision made in Rule 16-A of the all Indian Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958. As per sub-rule (3) of the said rules, in respect of persons appointed to IAS From State Civil Service, the date of birth as recorded in the service book maintained by the State Government shall be accepted by the Central Government as the date of birth of such person. It is for this reason that Sri V. Venkateswarlu neither declared nor was called upon to declare his date of birth before the Central government on appointment to the Indian Administrative Service.

9. The contention of the member of service that his request for alteration of date of birth is made within the limitation period of 5 years, therefore, is misconceived.

10. As noted supra, the date of birth of the member of service in the service register as maintained by the State government, has attalned statutory finality and irrevocabillty as per the provisions of Telangana (then A.P) Public Employment (Recording of Date of Birth) rules, 1994, which apply to the member of service on his joining the State Governrnent service.

11. In the circumstances. it is not feasible to consider the request of Sri V. Venkateswarlu for alteration of his date of birth from 21.04.1967 to 21.04. 1969. ,2. The representations of Sri V. Venkateswarlu are, accordingly forwarded herewith with a recommendation to reject the same for the reasons stated supra. Yours faithfully, Sd/-xxxx For Chief Secretary to Government (E) Letter d ated 27.t2.L997 of the Detitioner herein to the 1't resoondent is extracted hereu nder: - To The Honourable Director, Local Funds Audit Department, .I 8 SN, J \\,p _20324 _2023 Andhra Pradesh, HYDERABAD. Respected Sir, Sub: - Establishment - Sri Vanam Venkataswar I - Asst. Audit Officer - Local Funds Audit - Department -Application for correction of Date of Birth as 21.04.1169 instead of 21.O4.7967 - submitted - required - Rege -ding. **r** I, Sri. Vasam Venkateswarlu, S/o. Vasam Laxnri tarsaiah, native place of Yellandu, Khammam District submit my apl) cation for your kind perusal regarding the correction of my Date of Bi 'l 1. I submit that, I was selected as Asst. Audit O ficer (By Direct Recruitment) through A.P.P.S.C and joined duty as A:;: t. Audit Officer, Local Funds Audit Department, Hyderabad on 01.12.1)97 vide Progs. Roc.No.31533/823/C3/97, dated 15.11.1997 of Direc- ,r of Local Fund audit, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and presently un(l, rgoing Training w.e.F. 01.L2.7997 in Dr. MCRHRD Institute of Administration, Hyderabad for a period of 52 weeks. I came to know that my Date of Birth was wrc r gly recorded as 27.04.1,967 instead of 21.04.1969 due to clerlcal error and request to change of my Date of Birth as 21.04.1969 instead of 2. .O4.7967. I kindly request that my application may be considered fgavourably for correction of my Date of Birth as 21.0,1 1969 instead of 2L.04.1967 for which act of kindness. I shall be mucl grateful to you Sir. Place: Hyderabad 27.72.t997. Yours fa ithfully, Sd/-xxxx (VASAM V :'IKATESWARLU) A; t. Audit Offlcer, Local F r nds Audit Dept. (F) Counter affidavit tiled on br: ralf of the resDondent No.5 in oarticular Para Nos,l i and 6 are extracted hereunder:- / I 9 SN, J wp 20324 2023

5. It is submitted that Rule 16-4 of the All Indian Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958, which governs the acceptance of date of birth in respect of All India Services Officers provides in sub-rule (3) thereof, that in relation to a person who is appointed to the Indian Administrative Service by promotion from officers of State Civil Service, the date oF birth as recorded in the service book or other similar official document maintained by the concerned State Government shall be accepted by the Central Government as date of birth of such person. Even in respect of persons appointed to the Indian Administrative Service through a competitive examination for regular recruitment, sub-rule (2) of Rule 16-A provides that the date oF birth as declared by such person in the application for recruitment to the service shall be accepted by the Central Government as the date of birth of such person. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 16-4 provides that the date of birth as accepted by the Central Government shall not be subject to any alternation, except where it is established that a bona fide clerical mistake has been committed in entering the date of birth.

6. It is submitted that, it is clear from the provisions made in the above statutory rules that in so far as a person appointed to Indian Administrative Service from the State Civil Service is concerned, the date of birth as recorded in the service book maintained by the concerned State Government shall be accepted by the Central Government as the date of birth of such person. Sri V. Venkateswarlu was appointed as a Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service on 25.0t.2OO7 and the alteration of date of birth as recorded in the service book or other official document pursuant to his entry into the State Government service is governed by the Telangana (then A.p.) Public Employment (Recording of Date of Birth) Rules, 1994. Rule 2 (5) of the said rules provides that - "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 reasons, 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 flde clerical error, under the orders of the Government". DISCUSSION AND CONC LUSION: l0 SN, J wp 20324 2023 5 eti on m ed cou tsf rth ef c I T eh lf of tentio ns The petitioner was selected as Assistar 1 Audit Officer through AP public Service Commission and the l) )titioner joined as Assistant Audit Officer, Local Funds Audi Department, Hyderabad on 01.12.1997 vide progs. Roc.No.31 j)3/823/C3/g7, dated 15.11.1997 of Director of Local Fund audit, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the petitioner went for training with effect from Ol.L2.lgg7 in DT.MCRHRD Institute of Administration, Hyderabad for a period of 52 weeks. The petitioner came to know that the petitioner.s Dat ) of Birth was wrongly recorded as 21.04.1967 instead of 21(,.1969 due to clerical error only in the year 1997 and the p€:itioner made representation dated 27.L2.1997 to the 1st respc ndent herein, who is the competent authority to consider t- 3 petitioner,s application dated 27.L2.1997 for correction of p€r1 itioner,s Date of Birth as 21.04.1969 instead of 2t.04.1967. Ttr rugh the said representation had been acknowledged by the ojl ce of the l,t respondent on 24.t2.1997, no action had been tat en by the 1st respondent and instead in response tc petitioner,s representations dated 15.09 .2020 , 30 .09.2022 ad I .essed to the SN, J wP-20124 2023 5th respondent seeking alteration of petitioner's Date of Birth, surprisingly, the order impugned dated 14.11.2022 had been issued by the Chief Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad recommending to the 6th respondent herein for rejecting of the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not invoke the provisions of Telangana Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth), Rules 1984 for any alteration in petitioner's Date of Birth as recorded in the service register within the prescribed time and the petitioner has chosen to raise the issue in the year 2022 after the petitioner was promoted to Indian Administrative Service in the year 2018 and further that the Date of Birth of the petitioner in the service register as maintained by the State Government had attained finality and the.refore, the request of the petitioner for alteration of petitioner's Date of Birth from 21.04.1967 to 21.04.1969 is not feasible. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order impugned is totally contrary to record and had been passed arbitrarily denying petitioner.s right for alteration of Date of Birth as provided under the rules in force since the application of the petitioner was within the stipulated t2 SN, J \.\p_20324 2023 period as per the provisions of Telangana Putl c Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth), Fr les 1984, and therefore, the order impugned dated t4.tl. consequential proceedings of the 6th resf

13.01.2023 which unilaterally rejected the r petitioner for correction of Date of Birth, with: lO22 and the ondent dated )quest of the rt applying its mind independently, based on the recommendati )n of the State Government to the 6th respondent herein statin,; that the State Government had recommended to the Departme It to reject the request of the petitioner and the intimation petitioner dated 08.02.2023 pertaining to ttr issued to the ) rejection of petitioner's request by the 6th respondent her: n vide letter dated 13.0L.2023 holding that the represer :ation of the petitioner seeking alteration of petitioner's Dat: of Birth from

27.04.L967.to 2t.04.7969 is found to be wi : rout merit for examination/consideration by the Central Goverr ment is illegal and hence, liable to be set-aslde.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behr If of the 6th respondent places reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit at para Nos.5 and 6 and con ends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed fc r in the present {- - l3 SN, J \/tp]0324_2023 writ petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent also placing reliance on the averments made at para No.11 filed on behalf of the respondents contends that State Government itself did not find any merit in the case of the petitioner and recommended the 6th respondent to reject the request of the petitioner for alteration of the petitioner,s Date of Birth and the said decision of the State Government in rejecting the request of the petitioner is in accordance with the rules on the subject matter.

7. The A ex Court in t e Judoment dated O1.12.2O11 in Hioh Court of ndhra Pr desh Vs. N. Sanvasi Rao, r eDorte din 2o12) 1 scc 674 at Par a Nos .20 2L a n d22 obse rved as u nder:

20. Certain materials have been placed on record by the High Court on the administrative side in this appeal. One of such materials is that the Judicial Officer got admitted in 6th standard in 1961-62 and it was not possible that somebody born on 29.3.1953 would be in 6th standard in 1961-62 as at that time, he would hardly be 8-9 years old. We do not want to comment on such material. However, we strongly feel that the High Court on the administrative side must objectively determine the Judicial Officers age in accordance with the statutory provisions which is not shown to have been done at any point of time, after giving an opportunity to the Judicial Officer.

21. We, accordingly, dispose of this appeat by the following order: t4 SN, J ,\p 20124 2\)23 (a) The High Court on the administrative side s rall determine the Judicial Offlcers date of birth in accord wit I Rule 2 of the 1984 Ru les. (b) The above exercise shall be completed witlr I four months from the date of communication of this orrJer,,. (c) In case the Judicial Officers date of birth is Jetermined as 29.3.L953, an appropriate order for his reinsta, ment with all consequential benefits shall be issued as earl, as may be possible and in no case later than two weeks frc r the date of such determination.

22. The impugned order is order as to costs. modified as indicat td above. No B. This Court opines that in view of the law lairl down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment and he fact that there is nothing on record to indicate that the r: petitioner had been examined by taking into t material evidence in support of petitioner,s ca; luest of the ccount, the r since the specific case of the petitioner is that procedure as ( )ntemplated under Rule 2 of the 1984 Rules had not been fcl cwed, while entering petitioner's date of birth in the service rer:r rds and the petitioner submitted a representation/declaration w t as mandated under the rules, but however, b: recommendation oF the 5th respondent made respondent vide letter, dated 14.11.2022, lelter A/Al/2020-7, the 6th respondent issued thr: proceeding, dated t3.0t.2023, which was j 1in a month ;ed on the to the 6'h \o.768lSpl- impugned r bseq uently a- _., l5 SN, J \,tP 20324 2073 communicated to the petitioner by the 5th respondent by impugned Memo, dated 08.02.2023, the request of the petitioner needs to be reconsidered.

9. This Court opines that the pleas put forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents are untenable and are rejected in view of the fact as borne on record that the petitioner invoked the relevant rules seeking alteration of Date of Birth in accordance to law within the mandatory period and therefore, the order impugned is contrary to the respondents own record and hence the pleas put forth on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos'5 and 6 are rejected. .

10. A bare perusal of the record indicates that application of the petitioner is well within the period as stipulated under the Rules and the plea taken by the respondents in counter affidavit and also the order impugned is contrary to record' The material document filed by the petitioner at page No'32 even indicates that the representation of the petitioner as having been l6 SN, J wp 20324 2027 acknowledged on 27.12.1997 itself by the concerred Authority since the petitioner was appointed on 01.12.t)97 and the representation of the petitioner is dated 27.12.I99-, is within one month from the date of petitioner's appointment as per rule 2 of A.P./Telangana Public Employment (Recording anl Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984.

11. ation: akin ln (a) The facts and circumstances of the r ase, (b) The submissions of the learned cou nsel for the petitioner Iearned Government pleader, ap pearing on behalf of the respondent Nos,1 to 5 and lear red counsel for Central Government, appearing on behalf of respondent No.6, (c) The Judgment of the Apex Court in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Sanyasi Rao, report,: I an (2012) L SCC 674, (d) The counter affidavit filed on brr ralf of the respondent No.5 in particular para Nos.5 and 6 (referred to and extracted above), (e) The discussion and conclusion ars arrived at from para Nos.s to 8 of the present order, / I 7, 17 SN, J wp-20324 2023 This Writ Petition is allowed. The order/letter impugned vide letter No.25015/02/2O2O-AlS-lI (Pension) dated 13.01.2023 issued by the 6th respondent which had been communicated to the petitioner by the 5th respondent nr-de letter Memo No. 768lSpl-A/A1/2O2O, dated OA.O2.2O23 including Letter No.768lSpl-A- AL/2O2O-L, dated L4.LL.2O22 addressed by the 5th respondent to the 6th respondent are illegal and contrary to record and issued in a routine manner without application of mind and accordingly the same are set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the representations of the petitioner dated 15.09.2O20 and

30.O9.2022 seeking alteration of petitaoner's Date of Birth in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner duly taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court in the Judgment dated

01.12.2011 passed in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Sanyasi Rao reported in (2012) 1SCC 674(referred to and extracted above) duly examining the relevant service records of the petitioner and pass reasoned speaking l8 SN, .I $tp 20324 2023 order, within four (4) weeks from the date of eceipt of a copy of the order, and duly communicate the Cecision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no c rder as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending ir this Writ Petition, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// sD/ ;.GOWRI SHANKAR ?I4ryI:BE_C_ts_r_RAR_ SECTION OFFICER __ '1 . The Director of State Audit, State of Telangan Road, Abids, Hyderabad sL'ance Building, Tilak

2. The Principal Secretary to Government, Finance D,: Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. )artment, Secretariat

3. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue D: Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. )artment, Secretariat

4. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, I Nampalty, Hyderabad. ;tate of Telangana,

5. The Chief Secretary to Government, Secretariat Buildi r of Telangana. ys, Hyderabad, State

6. The Under Secretary to Govemment of lndia Ministrl, Grievances and Pensions Department, Personnel and - New Delhi, Union of lndia. of Personnel, Public raining, North Block,

7. One CC to SRI P.V KRISHNAIAH, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI G.VENKATESHWARLU, SC FOR CEN-- 9. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES, High Court for the S Hyderabad [OUT] rAL GOW. [OPUC] tate of Telangana at

10.Two CD Copies BsR 414,. "D/ HIGH COURT DATED: 1011112025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.20324 ot 2023 liTE /la a' i) c L) N I \) C) * I D,: iF a ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1A 1 t?