The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: JUDGMENT -:.i,,.-'-;..;7 THEHON'BL ETHE CHIEF JUSTICE SRIAPARESH IruMARSINGH AND TI{E HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE G.M. MOHruDDIN q/RIT APPEAL No.739 of2O2S JUDGMEH.s': Fiei..l-:l :.:ri i'. Ver-rkarcsh,,var Rao, learned coun_..el for ihe appeliarl|. Sr I l.l Arrurag, ieai-ne C Stancling Counsei lor TSR.|C appearing lti the respondcnts and perused the recorcl. .1. Thil ilt r i.{r!r j. u,ii: ilppcal is i-rled b_v the ,*-rll pctirioi :r aqqricvecl hv ihe or.rii,r of the iearned Single Judge, dated Oi:.42.2023 lrarsed in W.p.No_ i9265 of 20 l9 and also the orCer iiated 14.rJ2.2[)25 in l?evieu. I.A.No. 1 of 2023 filed in the sard rvrit petitilrr 'l're learned Single iudgc hclcl, ir,.ter alzrz that tl,ie appcllaut/ "r,r'it ,.titione: iiled thc said w.rit petition after the r...rir pciii-ioner ic rirlcl ii-ont scn,ice ; i.hat the documeirls tiled in S',Ippori (ii .l.ic i:.air!:l ,:f thc n,rit petitioner were obrained after the lvrit pett:i.nrrr eirtercd iirti; sc-a,--e anri that loi- the said reasons hr: il:rs disentitir:c]. ire irr clarrrring the re lief sought for.

3. The le ai-reci Sinqic ,judge cisrrrissed ttre abcve Writ Petition irclcling inter aiia that though the pror;eedings of appoinLmcnt ol rhe r'rit petitioner ciatei o7.03.1992 showed the \\Ti t lleriLiotir::r ai Se :;aj ljc. j4 r.r.,rerein his date ol birth rvas 2 1 mentioned as 16.09.1961, the rvrit petitioner had noL lakcn an1 steps for correction of his date of birth' The iearned Single Judge helcl that the appointment proceedings u'cre issued in Li-tc year 1992 and the vrrit petitioner despite having knowledgc at the time of joining into the service in respect cf his date of birth being mentioncd as 16.09.1961, failed to take any steps to carry out corrections in his date of birth; and having slept over the matter lor more Lhan two ciecacles. he cannot nor'l' knock the doors ol the C.turt alter retirement from serv'ice'

4. The appellant challenges the order of the learncd Singie Jud.ge inter alia on the ground that though the da te oi birth certificate dated 07.12.1989 issued by the Head Master ZPHS' Gungal, Ranga Reddy District r'r'as brought to the notice of the staff to correcl Lhe date of birth as O6 O5' 1966' the same l{ias not examinecl by the respondent authorities Further' it is thc case of the appellan t that the datc of birth lvas tampered as

16.O9.1961' from O5.05. 1966 u'ithout his knou'ledge'

5. It is settled position of lau' that for an employee secking thecorrectionofhisdateofbirth,itisaconditionprecedenL that he must show that the incorrect recording of the date of birth was made due to negligence of some other person or [hat the same \ ras an obvious clerical error failing which, the relief

3..r-F%u -) should n,rt be grantcd to him (Commissioner of Police u. Bhagutan v. Lahanel).

6. Thc licn'];le Supreme Court of lndia in State of M.p. u. Prernla! SlLri.uas2 has held as under: Lts sr{p i'tQ| o- t io I' a n I iLt, | 11. :) e rra / tt._ J )a iit lLesised Llldl i1 niat?rs 1 t)(iluitt 8, Il tiet'd: tu' h etrp n of dete of bitllt o tLLto,lian pt s!aLl!]!l tt'y!pLll]t:94reer, the (:otln or IlLe tibLtnal l!.,,s ta be ,)ircurr-j;pe.:t. cautiots otld rolilrl rrrlrr_le r.ssrrirro dircctto,t f9r correctiott o[ date ol'bir1h.. e9941e.1- jl llL? jfMice book .1t tlp l.itL9 ol etLtnl Lnto anlr qouenLnlgIt| se.ruice. 1 ar tlle lributr( is hdiu setislie.l ott the ir.r-sis of l/le Urle-s.s ih,, t:rrur I ti,w lo ltis date of !)1ttl1 ett(7 tlL1t st;r-h ct cLainr is ntutie irt irrelutqlzlapl4l;qa I he o,ocerlure prescnbei ucco rtl ti r ttt or ds Der ihe cotLsisiett Drocedttre edopteli_ b.L! ats lFre co-se tt(tA be, (Lt'Ld e real injusfri:r, lL.r-^ lEctL cat,secT to t.lie p?rso tr;t,,c<:nreC, lLte ccttl. o, ll La] l.ribLoLai ,iine shoukl l': ro.; /r io l-s-\re a dire(1k)t1 iii tttrrec:Iiort Lti the sentit:e L)oark. ttnd a,1,trtt ,hi,: (\l.l uenl a'nl seruotll Lcd arlment c.oncenw.l iri-s r:r2re.s.srtl !11-.: t\j!t tltaLt t it,tl.lt (; '.i1!:! 'sl for cane]ctiorL cl lhe reccrclerl date of birtlt ctller I lotte liq;c (,1 I ) s t t)cltia:Ltort ulto !.ilt serui..' - D I t11 t-l i ! ( r rlu bellon(l tilc trn l>u hA q11lo;te1 t cLann, es a fiLatter of noll. tle cofft 'L.,titrL of lti-s date of !2-1:!it, g41| tf he ll,.]s .rood e L)idette 1o cstablisi that tlLc ft..arded dcte o Dlrrlr i.s , libutLeL can cafirc tc tlE aid of those uln ),le .,lLer;'r their iqhts (see Uniolt of In.clia u. Ltantun. Sr:.th l(j993) 2 SCC i6) : /,lq.l .s(--(' frar9 .l75 : /199.3)21 _c'tc g2l). ritt errottt:otts- N() fi)utl or lit '1e,,

7. It is also ro be noted that an application lor correction of dale of birtir shoulci not be dealt wiLh keeping in riew only the petitioner, ils alrv such direction for correction o[ rhe date of i birth has a thitii'r reaction, inasmuch as othcrs 1\.ait1ng for years for their resip€crive promolions \,\,i11 be allectecl bccause of the correction cl 1.1e date of birth and many officers $,ho are below ' 1t99zy t scc :+; '](:or r) g srtt oo.r + 4 :. him in seniorigr waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever (Home Department a' R. Kimtbakaran3),

8. Il is observed that the documeni llled as birth certitlcate to prove thc actual date of birth of the appellant issueci by tl-rc Head Master is founC to be on a plain paper, lacking the tbrmal atlribules of an official certificate. Further, the said ccrtificate relied upon bv the appetlant is neither a transfer certificate nor printed on the letterhead of the institution thal u'ou1d ordinaril.v- confer legal validity, Th.r: said certificate also does not indicatc any date of issuance of the same. Thus. the said document iails to satisfy the requirements of a legaily recognized birth certihcate. Therefore, it cannot be accorded any evicientiary value or legal sanclitl'. The appiication of the appellant for correction ol hts date cf hirth also suffcrs frorn laches- g. Having regard io the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant hzrs laile d to make out any ground warranting inLerfercnce of this Court, in the u'ell reasoned order of the Iearned Single .Judge.

10. Thereiore, this Court is ol the vrew that the appellant failed to validly substantiate his claim for correction of date of birth within reasonable time and that he cannot be aiiowed to r 1994 Supp(l) SCC 155 r.--i*.Eiir.rE;=Ez f cail in quesLrtn of the r,,,ell reasoned order ol the lcarned Single Judge. Thr: Writ Appeai lacks merit and is liable to be dismissecl. i i. Acco -dinglv, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to CoStS Con:;etluentlv. misccllaneous petir,irrns pcrding, if any, shall stzrnd cr ()sed. ,TRUE COPY// s K SREERAMA MURTHY \eeurv REGtsTRAR SECTION OFFICER CC CC CD to SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocare..{gjpUCt !o SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC topuol Cop,st To

1. One 2. One 3. Two PSK LS HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 410812025 JUDGMENT WA.No.739 of 2025 i I ) / =' ,| ,1.:. ,,r, :' i,,.-) 27ltT inc ri 9- '\ ,'\.*\. r^- \r DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS L0 lx- t