Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Nadupuri Sanyasi Rao vs High Court Of A.P. on 6 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)ALT92
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan, G. Rohini
JUDGMENT Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. Petitioner Nadupuri Sanyasi Rao, now working as District Judge-cum- Chairman, A.P.Co-operative Tribunal at Vijayawada has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus for a declaration that he is entitled to get his correct date of birth i.e., 29.3.1953 entered in all the concerned registers at the High Court level and at all other concerned offices by deleting the incorrect date of birth i.e., 1.7.1949 and also for a consequential relief to quash the proceedings dated 13.11.1997 issued in ROC.No.4518/97-B.Section dated 11.12.1997 by the respondent herein as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard Shri Surender Rao, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Smt.Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned standing counsel for the A.P.High Court.
3. According to the entry made in the Births and Deaths Register, the petitioner w as born on 29.3.1953. He requested the officials of the Education Department to make necessary correction of his date of birth based on the entry made in the Births And Deaths Register. He issued a legal notice to the Secretary, Intermediate Board and others on 18.4.1982. Thereupon, he filed O.S.No.61 of 1983 by impleading the District Collector, Visakhapatnam as defendant No.1, the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh as the second defendant. The Registrar, Andhra University, Waltair as the third defendant and the Commissioner of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh as the fourth defendant.
4. The suit was contested by the defendants 1 and 2. After contest, the suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 28-2.1985.
Thereafter, he requested the officials to make necessary correction in terms of the decree. In the meanwhile, the petitioner applied for the post of District Munsif and he was selected as such. He was given an order of appointment and in pursuance thereof, he joined service on 7.10.1985 in Visakhapatnam District. The District Judge Visakhapatnam opened his service register on 30.12.1985. He has recorded his date of birth as 29.3.1953 based on the decree dated 28.2.1985 in O.S.No.61 of 1983. However, he also entered his date of birth as 1.7.1949 as per H.S.C. Register. The defendants in O.S.No.61 of 1983 have taken steps and made the necessary corrections in the S.S.C. Certificate of the petitioner. Ultimately, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.1739 dated 9.12.1988 altering the date of birth entering in the H.S.M.P.S.L.C., register from 1.7.1949 to 29.3.1953. Thereupon, the petitioner has made a representation to the A.P.High Court through the District Judge for making necessary entries in the records of the High Court which was forwarded by the letter of the District Judge dated 30.8.1989. The High Court by order dated 13.11.1997 in Roc.No.4518/97-B.Section dated 13.11.1997 rejected his request by the following endorsement:
"Considered and since it is found that entry in respect of the date of birth in the service record has been made on the basis of the representation of the concerned officer/officers and materials produced including decree of Civil Courts do not inspire confidence, resolved that representations for alteration of dates of birth be rejected."
5. Thereupon, the petitioner was advised to seek a review of the said order and he in fact preferred a review petition in the High Court on the administrative side within time. He got it forwarded on 24.1.1998 through the District Judge, West Godavari. The Review Petition is still pending and has not been disposed of by the High Court. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition with the prayer, as already stated above.
6. We have summoned for the records of the Writ Petitioner relating to the review petition from the High Court at the time of hearing of the matter and the entire records pertaining to the review petition were placed before us by the learned counsel appearing for the High Court. We have perused the same.
7. Since the entire record is placed before us pursuant to our direction, we have perused the review petition filed by the petitioner. It is seen from the review petition that the petitioner has not asked for any new relief or asked the said relief at the fag end of his service. He joined service on 7.10.1985 i.e., after two years from the date of filing of the suit and also after the pronouncement of the judgment in the said suit. The suit was filed in the year 1983 even two years prior to the entry of the petitioner into service as District Munsif. The petitioner also submitted in the review petition that by the date of the decree passed in the suit directing the defendants to effect alteration in his date of birth from 1.7.49 to 29.3.1953, he was not in service and did not even think that he would join service. The date of birth was altered as per judgment dated 28th February 1985 in O.S.No.61 of 1983 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Chodavaram on keen contest in the suit. As per Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984, correction ordered by the civil Court will be binding and the Civil Court will either decree the suit or dismiss the same and the correction ordered by the Civil Court will be useful for entry into the service Register. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner did not ask for any alteration of the date of birth but the relief prayed for was for recording the correct date of birth in the relevant records of the High Court since his altered date of birth was recorded in his S.S.L.C. register, service book and other relevant records.
8. In our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to get 29.3.1953 entered as his date of birth. In fact the decree was passed by the Civil Court even prior to the entry of the petitioner into service and even in his service register, the said entry was made. Even otherwise, the entry made in the H.S.M.P.S.L.C., Register was corrected vide G.O.Ms.No.1739 dated 9.12.1998.
9. Hence, the order of rejection made by this Court, in our opinion, is contrary to law.There is no basis for this Court on the administrative side to reject the request made by the petitioner for altering his date of birth on the strength of the decree obtained by him in O.S.No.61 of 1983.
Under these circumstances, we declare that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 29.3.1953 and not 1.7.1949.
10. In the result, we dispose of not only the present Writ Petition granting the relief as prayed for by the petitioner but also the Review petition filed by the petitioner seeking to review the order dated 13.11.1997.The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed as prayed for There shall be no order as to costs.