Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Kothakota Sreenivasa Reddy vs Home Affairs on 28 July, 2025
OA 021/0081/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: HYDERABAD
OA No.021/0081 of 2022
Date: 28.07.2025
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER(A)
Kothakota Sreenivasa Reddy, IPS
S/o. K. Chinna Sathyanarayana Reddy,
Aged about 56 years,
Additional Director General of Police (Operations),
Greyhounds and OCTOPUS, Telangana, Hyderabad.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Ms. Rachna Reddy, Senior Counsel for Ms. A. Alekhya)
Vs
1. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Grih Mantralaya,
New Delhi.
2. The Under Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
General Administration (J-C) Department,
Secretariat, AP, Amaravati.
4. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
General Administration Department,
Secretariat, Telangana, Hyderabad.
5. The Secretary,
The Departmental of Personnel and Training,
North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110 001.
6. The Union Public Service Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110 069.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr.V. Vinod Kumar, Sr. PC for CG
Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG
Mr. B. Rajeswara Reddy, GP for AP
Mrs. S. Anuradha, AGP for TS
Mr. Ajay Kumar, SC for UPSC)
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA
BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=
d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@
Page 1 of 46
gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
OA 021/0081/2022
ORAL ORDER
[Per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member (J)] The applicant filed this Original Application seeking the following relief:
―In the above facts stated above, the applicant humbly prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to Order No.I- 45013/01/25015-IPS.1 dated 11.06.2021 communicated under Letter dated 07.07.2021 and letter dated 18.08.2021; and set aside and quash the said order dated 11.06.2021 as bad in law, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional, and consequently, direct the respondents to correct the relevant service records of the applicant by incorporating the date of birth of the applicant as 23.09.1966 and grant all consequential benefits arising thereafter and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.‖ FACTS OF THE CASE:
2 (i) The applicant was recruited to Indian Police Service (IPS) in 1994 and allocated to the then composite State of Andhra Pradesh, and after bifurcation of the composite State into two States viz., State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Telangana, he was allocated to the cadre of newly formed State of Telangana. He is presently working in the Additional DGP rank.
(ii) According to him, he was born on 23.09.1966 at St. Teresa Hospital, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh and the said date was registered on 28.09.1966.
However, his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the school records as 05.08.1965, which was continued in SSC and the subsequent college records.
Left with no option, he had mentioned the same date in the application form submitted for Civil Services examination.
(iii) The applicant submitted a representation along with relevant documents seeking change of date of birth, which was forwarded by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the Central Government, which, vide order dt.27.08.2009, rejected his claim for alteration of date of birth, citing Rule 16-A of All India Services (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (for short "1958 Rules").
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURUVISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 2 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 Aggrieved, the applicant filed OA No. 593 of 2010 before this Tribunal, wherein, this Tribunal, vide order dt. 26.07.2013, directed the Govt of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and other concerned authorities, to take a decision about the change of date of birth of the applicant based on the material furnished by him.
(iv) In compliance thereof, the 1st respondent addressed a communication to the State Government seeking the available records and to look into the claim of the applicant regarding his date of birth. Thereupon, the District Collector, Kurnool, after calling for the reports from the Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, confirmed the date of birth of the applicant as 23.09.1966, vide report submitted to the then Government of Andhra Pradesh on 14.02.2014. Despite the same, the 1st respondent, issued order dt. 26.09.2014, rejecting the claim of the applicant and the same was communicated to him by the State of Andhra Pradesh, vide Memo, dt.20.10.2014.
(v) Being aggrieved, the applicant, once again approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 1512 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dt. 22.03.2021, by remitting the matter to the respondents to examine in detail and take a decision in the matter of alteration of the date of birth of the applicant, as was done in respect of other officers, under Rule 16A of 1958 Rules, read with Rule 3 of All India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matters), Rules, 1960 (for short 1960 Rules). Once again, the 2nd respondent rejected the request of the applicant, vide impugned order dt. 11.06.2021. Being aggrieved, the applicant, filed this OA.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT:
3(i) It is the contention of the applicant that the impugned order is not a speaking order and the same has been issued by an incompetent authority. It is Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 3 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 pointed out by the applicant that dates of birth in respect of two officers viz., Sri T. Radha, IAS and Shri Vishwa Ranjan, IPS were corrected based on their matriculation certificates, whereas, his claim for correction of date of birth has been rejected, even though there is clinching evidence in the form of Certificate of Birth issued under Section 12/ Section 17 of the Registration of Births & Deaths Act, 1969. It is further contended that the said certificate of birth is a statutory document, with higher degree of genuinity, and ignoring such primary evidence is patently wrong. The respondents, having accepted the earlier order passed by this Tribunal, caused an enquiry and the State Government submitted a report confirming his date of birth as 23.09.1966. Though this Tribunal passed orders to consider the relaxation extended to others, the respondents, with prejudice, have not extended the same, thereby discriminating the applicant.
(ii) It is further contended by the applicant that school record is prepared based on the date of birth certificate, but the 2 nd respondent viewed it in the reverse as if the school certificate is the basis for recording the date of birth in the birth records, which is not correct. The present impugned order is nothing but reiteration of the earlier stand, which was subject matter of the challenge in OA No. 1512 of 2014. Thus, it is apparently clear that the impugned order is mechanically passed and is not in strict compliance with the order of this Tribunal. It is also the contention of the applicant that this Tribunal directed the respondents to look into his claim in the teeth of Rule 3 of 1960 Rules, despite the availability of Rules 16-A of 1958 Rules and its rigors. Pursuant thereto, both the State and the Central Governments, having accepted the said order of this Tribunal, took a decision under Rule 3 of 1960 Rules and conducted an enquiry, and only after a positive report emerged in the enquiry, the 1 st respondent sought to find fault with the order of this Tribunal and conveyed a Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 4 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 negative stand altogether. This Tribunal, in the earlier OA, having found that there is genuinety in the claim of the applicant, directed the respondents to decide the case of the applicant on par with the cases of other officers, whose cases were favourably decided in spite of Rule 16-A of 1958 Rules. Rule 16-A of 1958 Rules, which is a condition of service, is controlled by the Rule relating to relaxation as per Rule 3 of 1960 Rules. If the correct date of birth is not considered, the applicant would retire 13 months ahead of his actual age of superannuation. The 2nd respondent, who lacks competency to pass any order, again rejected his case. The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 4(i) Upon notices, the 1st respondent filed a written statement, denying the contentions of the applicant in his OA. It is stated that the applicant, a DR of IPS-1994, submitted a representation claiming that his date of birth had been wrongly shown as 05.08.1965 instead of 23.09.1966. Thereupon, the UPSC dossier was examined, wherein the date of birth of the applicant was entered as 05.08.1965 and therefore, there was no bonafide clerical mistake. Accordingly, his representation was rejected on 27.08.2009, which was challenged before this Tribunal in OA No. 593/2010, and the said OA was disposed of on 26.07.2013 with a direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter, as to whether the date of birth of the applicant deserves to be changed. Thereupon, the authenticity of the birth certificate produced by the applicant and of the wedding card of his parents were ascertained from the State Government and the case of the applicant was duly considered in consultation with the DOPT, which held Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 5 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 that the matter does not constitute „undue hardship‟ as contemplated under the AIS (Conditions of Service - Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 and the same was rejected, vide order, dt. 26.09.2014. The applicant, once again, filed OA No. 1512/2021 before this Tribunal and the said OA was disposed of, vide order, dt.
22.03.2021, with certain directions. In compliance thereof, the case of the applicant for alteration of date of birth has been considered and found to be devoid of merit in terms of Rule 16(4) of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 and hence, rejected, vide order, dt. 11.06.2021. Aggrieved by the same, he has once again approached this Tribunal, by way of this OA.
(ii) It is submitted by the 1st respondent that an IPS officer is governed by the All India Service (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 and Rule 16-A of the said Rules deals with the „acceptance of date of birth‟, as per which, the date of birth, as accepted by the Central Government, shall not be subject to any alteration, except where it is established that a bonafide clerical mistake had been committed in accepting the date of birth under sub-rule (2) or (3). In the instant case, the applicant had entered his date of birth in UPSC dossier as 05.08.1965 and there was no bonafide clerical mistake. Therefore, in compliance with the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 1512/2014, the matter was considered in the light of existing rules/ regulations and rejected due to absence of bonafide clerical mistake, vide speaking order dt. 11.06.2021. Hence, the 1st respondent sought for dismissal of the OA.
REJOINDER BY THE APPLICANT
5. The applicant filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the respondent No.1, stating that the order of this Tribunal in OA 1512/2014 has not been complied with, in letter and spirit, inasmuch as the respondents were directed to Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 6 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 examine his case in the context of other officers, who have been granted similar relief and the same has not been done and the impugned order has been issued mechanically without assigning any cogent reason, though all the conditions required for application of Rule 3A are covered in his case. It is further stated by the applicant that in the enquiries conducted by the respondents, it was found that his real date of birth is 23.09.1966, as per the hospital record at the time of his birth. He was not knowing the said date of birth while joining the service and as such, wrong date of birth was recorded as 05.08.1965. His representation has been simply rejected on the ground that there is no clerical error and since there cannot be an absolute bar to correct the wrong, the benefit of relaxation provided under Rule 3 of the Rules 1960 shall be extended to him to do substantial justice. Rule 16A of 1958 Rules has to be read harmoniously with Rule 3 of 1960 Rules. The applicant further stated that in respect of several officers, the respondents have corrected the date of birth viz.,
(i) One Sri L. Premachandra Reddy, IAS, while working as Commissioner of Technical Education, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh filed OA No. 268/2010 and pursuant to the order of this Tribunal, his date of birth was corrected as 28.03.1956 in the place of 10.06.1954, vide Governmental Order dt.06.09.2013
(ii) Date of birth of Smt. B. Udayalakshmi, IAS was altered from 10.12.1958 to 17.03.1961, pursuant to the orders of the AP Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the Hon‟ble High Court and the Supreme Court.
(iii) Date of birth of Sri B. Ramaiah, IAS, was also corrected pursuant to the orders of this Tribunal, as confirmed by the Hon‟ble High Court and Supreme Court.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURUVISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 7 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3
6. The 3rd respondent i.e. the State of Andhra Pradesh filed an affidavit stating that as per the directions of the Collector, Kurnool, vide proceedings dt.
20.12.2013, on the Govt. Memo of the GA (SC.C) Dept, dt. 06.12.2013 for an inquiry into the date of birth of the applicant, the Municipal Commissioner & RDO had submitted two reports. As per the report of the RDO dt. 01.12.2014, on the basis of the statement of parents and blood relatives, Xerox copy of the wedding and the certificate of birth, the date of birth of the applicant is 23.09.1966 as per the municipal records. It is further stated that as per the report of the Municipal Commissioner, Kurnool, vide Lr. No. 09.01.2014, the birth record pertaining to the year 1966 were verified and found that the applicant‟s birth details were registered in birth register vide Register No. 2142, dt.
28.09.1966 and his date of birth is 23.09.1966. It is further stated by the 3rd respondent that, as informed by the Collector, Dt. 05.03.2025, the original Birth Register relating to Register No. 2142, dt. 28.09.1966, mentioned in the communication dt. 09.01.2014 of the Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, is not available, however, the communication file Rc. No. 6386/DSO/2013, dt. 09.01.2014 of their office is available. It is further stated that the original records of St. Theresa‟s General Hospital, Kurnool, where the applicant was born, have been traced and according to the Birth Register of the said hospital, the mother of the applicant Smt. Gopal Krishna Veni delivered a made live child in her first pregnancy on 23.09.1966.
REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT No.6
7. The respondent No.6 i.e. UPSC also filed Reply Statement stating that its role is limited to conduct of the examination and recommending the candidates Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 8 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 as per rules notified by the DOPT and after declaration of final result, the dossiers of the candidates containing their particulars viz., name, father‟s name, date of birth, education qualifications, etc. were forwarded to the DOPT for service allocation and onward transmission to the concerned Cadre Controlling Authority. It is further stated that the list of finally recommended candidates of Civil Services Examination 1993 has been checked and it is found that the applicant was finally recommended and his dossier was also forwarded to the DOPT for onward transmission to MHA as he was allocated to IPS. It is further stated that, no document is available with the Commission containing the date of birth of the applicant. Any action in respect of a recommended candidate, including change in Date of Birth etc. is subject matter of concerned Cadre Controlling Authority.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record.
SUBMISSIONS/ ARGUEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:
9(i) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant argued on the point that, for the first time, on 30.04.2009, upon discovering his parents wedding card and lagnapatrika, which showed the marriage date as 09.05.1965, prompted the applicant to submit a representation to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh through proper channel, seeking correction of his recorded date of birth in his service record from 05.08.1965 to 23.09.1966. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the date of marriage of the parents of the applicant i.e. 09.05.1965 and the recorded date of birth of the applicant i.e. 05.08.1965 is inconsistent and improbable with normal human gestation period, thereby, serious doubt on the accuracy of the recorded date of Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 9 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 birth arises. On verifying his official birth certificate, the applicant realised that a bonafide clerical error had crept in while recording his date of birth in his service record. Accordingly, he had requested for correction of his date of birth.
However, his request was rejected by the Respondent No.1, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide order dt. 27.08.2009, which was communicated, vide letter, dt.
09.09.2009 and the same was subject matter of challenge before this Tribunal in OA No. 593/2010, wherein, vide its order dt. 26.07.2013, this Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant as to whether it falls under Rule 3 of All India Services (Conditions of Service - Residuary Matter) Rules, 1960 and if so, whether the material on record justify the correction of date of birth and for which purpose, appropriate enquiries can be made, if desired. The applicant has submitted his birth certificate, which was registered on 28.09.1966 with Kurnool Municipal Corporation, under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The respondent State made enquiries as per the directions of this Tribunal, dt. 26.07.2013 and submitted reports to the concerned office.
Despite the verified findings, the Respondent No.1 rejected the applicant‟s request again vide order dt. 26.09.2014 and communicated vide Memo dt.
20.10.2014, without considering the substantial evidence given by the State Government. Therefore, the applicant, once again, filed OA No. 1512 of 2014, which was disposed of by this Tribunal, vide order, dt. 22.03.2021, directing the respondents to issue a speaking and reasoned order, based on the extant rule/ law, within a period of six months. However, without considering the case of the applicant, though the applicant has explicitly made the ground of „undue hardship‟ as well as he is similarly placed to those officers, whose dates of birth had been altered/ modified by giving relaxation under Rule 3 of 1960 Rules almost after 15 to 25 years of their service, by condoning the delay, the Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 10 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 respondent No.1 has harped on the issue of limitation under the said Rule stating that the employee has to submit the application for correction of date of birth within five years from the date of joining service, thereby the applicant has been discriminated.
ii) Learned senior counsel for the applicant further contended that there are number of cases, which were considered by the Tribunal/ Courts and the said orders attained finality before the higher courts up the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, where direction has been issued to the respondent employer to relax the condition under the said limitation for correction of date of birth by condoning the delay to avoid undue hardship, which would, otherwise, cause irreparable loss to the employee. It is further submitted that, the applicant was not aware of this correct date of birth and he was forced to mention his incorrect date of birth, not only in the school record/ educational records, but also in his service record.
Learned counsel further contended that the applicant in his representation is claiming parity on par with the two other officers, viz., Sri T. Radha, IAS and Sri Vishwa Ranjan, IPS and the applicant‟s case is exactly similar to their cases.
Though the respondents have altered their dates of birth by relaxing the condition, the same treatment has been denied to the applicant on flimsy grounds. The respondents have not given any reason for rejection and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
iii) Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that in many of the orders, this Tribunal as well as the Hon‟ble High Court has observed that the date of birth once entered into the official records is not sacrosanct and it may be altered and the Rule 3 of the Rules 1960 is not intended to serve as a basis for rejection of such a request, but rather, it is an enabling provision for relaxation of Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 11 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 the existing rules in circumstances, where, undue and unwarranted hardship to the officer concerned is caused and, in most of the matters, the observations of this Tribunal were upheld in the High Court as well as the Hon‟ble Supreme court.
iv) Learned counsel further contended that in many of the cases, officers applied for change of date of birth or correction of date of birth almost after 15 years to their fag end of their service, whereas, the applicant had approached the concerned authorities as early as possible, upon knowledge of the correct date of birth. Learned counsel further argued that if the respondents accept the request of the applicant and alter the date of birth, from 05.08.1965 to 23.09.1966, it wound not render the applicant ineligible to appear for any school, university or UPSC exam and the birth certificate produced by the applicant is admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The entry of the date of birth of the applicant made on 28.09.1966 by the Municipal authority is of the conclusive evidentiary value and its authenticity is not in dispute. Further, necessary enquiries to that effect were also made by the Collector as well as the Municipal Commissioner and submitted their report in detail after recording the statements of the witnesses. The concerned revenue authority also issued a certificate in the year 2014. Learned counsel contended that the certificate issued afresh has been considered by the respondent No.1 as a re-issued certificate, which, in fact, is incorrect.
v) Learned counsel further argued that, as compared to the cases which were considered by the respondents for alteration/ correction of date of birth in the matter of several officers by virtue of courts orders, the case of the applicant stands on much stronger footing. Therefore, denail of relief to the applicant Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 12 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 while granting relief to others, who approached the authorities belatedly, amounts to hostile discrimination, and the same is contrary to Rule 3 of 1960 Rules, which is not a bar, but an enbaling provision to do justice in exceptional circumstances. The impugned rejection of the applicant‟s request despite clear and authoritiative documentation including conclusive report, dt. 14.02.2014 demonstrates administrative bias and failure of constitutional duties and as such, arbitrary action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. More over, the impugned order dt.11.06.2021 is not a speaking order, bereft of analysis or reasoning as required in compliance of the principles of natural justice and recording of the reasoning is a condition precedent for a fair decision. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that while recording his date of birth in the service register, there was mistake on the part of the applicant, and the same has to be treated as a bonafide mistake. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable under law.
vi) Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of her contentions, has relied upon the following decisions:
a) Union of India v. J.R. Anand - WP No. 17291 of 2014 and 17221 of 2014
of the Hon‟ble High Court at Hyderabad
b) CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath - (2009) 7 SCC 283
c) Vishal Sharma v. State of Haryana - (2019) SCC Online P & H 6722
d) S.R. Tewari v. Union of India - (2013) 6 SCC 602
e) R.R. Verma & Ors v. Union of India & Ors - (1980) 3 SCC 402
SUBMISSION/ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
10(i) Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the relief on the ground that in the matter of applicant, principles of res judicata as well as estoppel apply as the issues of undue and unwarranted hardship as well as on the Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 13 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 point of limitation have already been considered and negatived by this Tribunal by a detailed order in OA No. 1512/2014. Learned counsel further objected the case laid down by the applicant‟s counsel on the ground that this is the third round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, the order of this Tribunal was not on merit, whereas, in the second round of litigation, this Tribunal disposed of the OA on merit and the claim of the applicant with regard to undue hardship as well as condonation of delay in submitting such a request for alteration of date birth has been negatived. However, the applicant requested the court that though he had relied upon the cases, which had been considered by condoning the delay, the respondents have not given reasons while rejecting his representation. Therefore, this Tribunal, having adjudicated the matter on merits and negatived the claim of the applicant and on limited issues, remitted the matter to the respondents to examine in detail and decide the request made by the applicant for alteration of date of birth in the context of other officers said to have been granted similar relief. Accordingly, the respondents considered the representation of the applicant in tune with the directions of this Tribunal dt. 22.03.2021 in OA 1512/2014 as the applicant compared himself with other officers, and passed a detailed order.
ii) In regard to the claim of the applicant that there was a bonafide mistake on his part, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no bonafide mistate as well as there is no undue hardship and there cannot be any comparison with other cases, and accordingly, the respondents have given a reasoned order, in detail, as to why the respondents had considered the cases of officers named by the applicant viz., Sri T. Radha, IAS and Sri Vishwaranjan, IPS for alteration of their dates of birth. Learned counsel for the respondents Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 14 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 further contended that the applicant is relying upon the birth certificate issued in the year 1995 showing his date of birth as 23.09.1966, whereas, Birth and Death Registration Act came into force in 1969. However, the date of birth of the applicant was registered on 28.09.1966 i.e. before the enactment of the said Act, that too, within 5 days after his birth as per the date of birth of 23.09.1966, which he is claiming to be correct date of birth. However, his date of birth was recorded in the school records as 05.08.1965. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the applicant is relying upon his Parents‟ wedding invitation card for correction of his date of birth. Learned counsel argued that the father of the applicant was not an illiterate and as per the wedding invitation card, he was studying BE (Final) and with such a higher qualification, the father of the applicant cannot be said to have given a wrong date of birth to the school authorities. When according to the applicant, his date of birth of 23.09.1966 was registered on 28.09.1966, i.e. within 5 days of his birth, it cannot be accepted that his father, who is well educated then, had, erroneously and by ignorance, given his date of birth to the school authorities and the claim of the applicant in this regard is not reasonable and cannot be accepted.
iii) Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that birth certificate with Registration No. 2142/200, dt. 28.09.1966 (under Section 12/ issued under Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969) with the date of issue as 02.11.1995 has been submitted by the applicant. On scrutiny of the said birth certificate, it is observed that Municipal Authorities have registered the applicant‟s birth on 28.09.1966, approximately 3 years prior to the registration of Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969 came into force, which is also contradictory and questionable. Further, one more birth certificate was Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 15 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 submitted by the applicant and on online checking of the Certificate of Birth ODD No. 53362149, along with the certificate dated 02.11.1995 of the applicant, the applicant‟s late registration is found and the details of the rest of the 2141 certificates are not shown, thereby, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the certificate of birth is also tampered one to suit the requirements of the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued on the point that the applicant, who had joined the IPS in 1994 and was having the birth certificate issued on 02.11.1995, had not raised his grievance by submitting any representation for change of date of birth within the time limit as per rules and law and he had submitted his first representation in the year 2009, almost after 15 years of his service for change of his date of birth. Even in his first representation dt.30.04.2009, the applicant did not refer to the birth certificate said to have been issued by the Kurnool Municipal Corporation on 02.11.1995.
The reason for not submitting the same before the competent authority within the time limit specified under FR 56 is questionable. Thus, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing this OA and misinterpreting the facts and wasting the precious time of this Tribunal.
(iv) It is further argued that, pursuant to the court directions in connection with the entry made at Sl. No.5 Registration No.: 2142/200 in the birth certificate dt.
02.11.1995, the applicant, vide Memo, dated 27.03.2025, filed the Endorsement No. Rc.No.700765/2025/DSO/F1 dated 17.03.2025 issued by Public Information Officer & Health Officer, Kurnool Municipal Corporation under the RTI Act and the said information given by the said authority is ambiguous. The Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool, vide letter No. Rc.H3/3316/2013, dated 05.02.2014, taking into consideration, the inquiry report ref. No. Rc.E 147/2014, Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 16 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 dt. -01-2014, signed by RDO, Kurnool dt. 01.12.2014, the date of birth of the applicant‟s brother Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, was shown as 01.11.1967, based on SCC certificate, whereas, the Collector‟s letter dt. 05.02.2014, while ignorning the said letter dt. 01.12.2014, mentioned the date of the brother of the applicant as 01.11.1968 based on statement given by the father of the applicant, which is highly innacuarate and thereby, making the Collector‟s report untenable in the eyes of law. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that ignoring the correspondence between the revenue authorities, certifying the date of birth of the applicant based on the statement given by the father of the applicant, which is not only inaccurate, but is also not tenable in the eyes of law. However, as per the statement given by Sri Nayakanti Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, who is the maternal uncle and also father-in-law of the applicant, before the Tahsildar, C. Belegal Mandal, Kurnool District, they had registered the date of birth of the applicant on the applicant‟s admission in I Class as 05.08.1965, thereby it is evident that there is no clerical mistake involved, as observed by this Tribunal in OA 1512/2014.
(v) Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that as per FR 56 Note 6(c), the date of birth so altered, if any, would not make an employee ineligible to appear in any school or university or UPSC exam, in which, he had appeared or for entry into Government service on the relevant date, as the case may be.
Learned counsel tried to demonstrate that if the date of birth of the applicant i.e. 23.09.1966, as claimed by him is accepted to be correct, it will directly make the applicant ineligible for writing the SSC examination, because, as on 31.08.1980, the applicant would be less than 14 years, as required in terms of Item 3 of Rule VIII of SSC Scheme published vide GO Ms. No. 63, Education (W-2), dated 16.01.1969, thereby, making the entry level certificate of the applicant i.e. SSC Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 17 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 as invalid and consequently, effecting the subsequent educational qualifications acquired by the applicant. Despite the same, bald statement has been made by the learned counsel for the applicant, while arguing the matter as well as in the written submissions, that change of date of birth of the applicant would not make him ineligible, which is incorrect on the face of record and the applicant cannot seek relaxation of any of the conditions to appear for the SSC examination, and this court is not competent to do so, as well as, such relaxation is not available by default. Before appearing for the SSC examination, a request has to be submitted to the concerned authority of Education Board/ Department, who are vested with the power of relaxation. Acceptance of such date of birth shall make the applicant ineligible to appear for SSC and his entire service will be wiped out on that ground. Hence, the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria laid down under FR 56 Note 6(c) for change of date of birth as well as to grant any such relaxation since there is no bonafide mistake or undue or unwarranted hardship and there is no discrimination meted out to him, as alleged by him, considering the details of other officers.
(vi) Learned counsel further contended that law is well settled that anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings and if a forged and fabricated document is filed in Court with an oblique motive to seek some relief from the court, the same would amount to interference with the administration of justice and that apart, the conduct of such party, who produces such a document, is punishable for contempt of court. Respondents‟ counsel further contended that the applicant, being an IPS officer, is bound by code of conduct and is expected to uphold higher standards of integrity in his official duties, including his approach with the judiciary and would be a role model to his juniors. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that there is Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 18 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 no merit in the case of the applicant and the same is devoid of merit, since his claim for condonation of delay for claiming relaxation on the ground of undue hardship has already been decided against him on merits. The applicant has failed to make out his case and also failed to point out the similarity with the other two officers in the matter of alteration of date of birth. Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the OA.
(vii) Learned counsel for the UPSC submits that after completion of the selection and after making recommendations, the entire record is forwarded to the concerned Department/ Ministry and their dates of birth will be recorded in the UPSC dossiers as per their SCC certificate, even though, sometimes, the individual candidates may record different date of birth in their UPSC application. However, in the matter of the applicant, it was not the case of the applicant that he had given different date of birth in the UPSC dossier than what is recorded in the SSC certificate. Thus, the date of birth mentioned in the UPSC application as well as the SSC certificate are same. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there is an error or a bonafide mistake.
11. ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION I. Since this is the third round of litigation, learned counsel for the parties have drawn our attention to the earlier orders passed by this Tribunal in the OAs filed by the applicant. Initially, the applicant had approached this Tribunal in OA No. 593 of 2010 challenging the rejection of Respondent No.1, dt.27.08.2009, whereby, his request for correction of DOB, from 05.08.1965 to 23.09.1966, was rejected. On a perusal of the said order, dt. 27.08.2009, it is seen that the 1st Respondent had observed that, as no bonafide clerical mistake had been committed in accepting the date of birth of the applicant, his request Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 19 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 for change of his date of birth is not covered under Rules and the same cannot be accepted. After considering the rival submissions, this Tribunal, vide order, dt. 26.07.2013 in OA 593/2010, at para 30 observed thus:
―As already referred the first repsondent while rejecting the representation of the applicant has not at all taken into consideration the question of applicability of Rule-3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service- Residuary Matter) Rules, 1960. As such we deem it appropriate that the matter has to be re-considered by first respondent to take a decision as to whether the power available to the government under Rule-3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matter) Rules, 1960 has to be exercised in the case of the applicant and relief can be granted to him. We make it clear that we are not at all giving any positive finding on merits of the case with regard to relaxation or with regard to the material produced by the applicant for exercise the power of relaxation. It is for the first respondent and other concerned authorities to take a decision as to whether the applicant deserves change in his date of birth. Two things that are to be decided are (i) whether the case of the applicant deserves to be considered under Rule-3 of All India Services (Conditions of Service- Residuary Matter) Rules, 1960 (ii) In case it deserves to be considered under above rule whether on the basis of material produced, the date of birth of the applicant can be changed as requested - for which purpose appropriate enquires cana be made, if desired.― Thus, this Tribunal had made it clear that they did not give any positive finding on merit on the case with regard to relaxation or with regard to the material produced by the applicant for exercising the power of relaxation, and it was left to the 1st Respondent and other concerned authorities, to take a decision, as to whether the applicant deserves change in his date of birth. Thus, this Tribunal observed that two things are to be decided viz., whether the case of the applicant deserves to be considered under Rule 3 of 1960 Rules, and, in case it deserves to be considered under the above Rules, whether the date of birth of the applicant can be changed on the material produced by him, and if necessary, appropriate enquires can be made. From the above order, it is clear that this Tribunal had not given any positive finding on merit or given an order or mandamus against Respondent No.1. The issue was left to the 1 st Respondent and other authorities to take a decision and there is no ambiguity in the order.
Accordingly, the applicant has submitted another representation, and thereupon, Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 20 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 certain enquiries were also made. On the face of the reports so submitted by the Revenue authorities, dehors the Date of Birth, as shown in SSC certificates of the applicant and his siblings, in the said report, another date of birth has been shown as 23.09.1966, may be, as submitted by the applicant. However, when the applicant himself is relying upon the certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation dated 02.11.1995 and, having entered into the service in the year 1994, we are surprised to note as to why the applicant had not raised grievance timely. There is no whisper in the OA or anywhere in his representation that when he was having date of birth certificate issued by the authorities on 02.11.1995 and what prevented him to raise objection. Therefore, in the second round of litigation, when respondents again rejected his claim vide order, dt.
26.09.2014, on the ground that his request for change of date of birth from 05.08.1965 to 23.09.1966 does not deserve to be considered under Rule 3 of 1960 Rules, the order was impugned in the OA 1512/2014.
II. This Tribunal, after recording all facts and the pleas of the applicant as well as of the respondents, have passed orders in the OA 1512/2014. The relevant portion of the reads thus:
―7(I) The dispute is about alteration of the date of birth of the applicant as 23.09.1966, who joined the Indian police service in 1994. While filling up the UPSC dossier to appear in the Civil Services Exam, applicant has entered the date of birth as 5.8.1965. However, applicant contends that since the parents of the applicant were married on 09.05.1965, the date entered in service record is incorrect and that the correct date is 23.09.1966, which was confirmed by the State Government by getting appropriate inquires conducted through the competent authorities, as a consequential action in response to the directions of the Tribunal in OA 593/2010 filed by the applicant hitherto, which is reproduced for reference:
"30. As already referred the first respondent while rejecting the representation of the applicant has not at all taken into consideration the question of applicability of Rule-3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service- Residuary Matter) Rules, 1960. As such we deem it appropriate that the matter has to be re-considered by first respondent to take a decision as to whether the power available to the government under Rule-3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matter) Rules, 1960 has to be exercised in the case of the applicant and relief can be granted to him. We make it clear that we Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 21 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 are not at all giving any positive finding on merits ofthe case with regard to relaxation or with regard to the material produced by the applicant for exercising the power of relaxation. It is for the first respondent and other concerned authorities to take a decision as to whether the applicant deserves change in his date of birth. Two things that are to be decided are (i) whether the case of the applicant deserves to be considered under Rule-3 ofAll India Services (Conditions of Service-Residuary Matter) Rules, 1960 (ii) In case it deserves to be considered under above rule whether on the basis material produced, the date of birth of the applicant can be changed required -for which purpose appropriate enquiries can be made, if desired."
The applicant contends that since the GOI has not doubted the report of the State Govt, there should not be any issue in altering the date of birth by invoking Rule 3 of 1960 Rules. However, respondents have disagreed to concede by relying on Rule 16 A of 1958 Rules as well as the Judgements of the superior judical fora.
II. Nevertheless, when we go to the basics of the issue, the UPSC application form is the primary document from which the details of the applicant are culled out and entered in the service records. The date recorded in the UPSC dossier is 05.08.1965. The applicant claims that since he had to prepare for the exam and was busy with his career, he could take up the issue only in 2009. While we understand the predicament of the applicant, the instructions issued on the subject, by the nodal Ministry ie DOPT, are as under:
"Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training North Block, New Delhi-110 001 Dated: 16th December, 2014 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Alteration of date of birth of a Government Servant reiteration of the instructions.
Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules states that except as otherwise provided in the rule, every Government servant will retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.
Provided that a Government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years.
2. As per Note 6 below the aforesaid Rule, the date of on which a Government servant attains the age offifty-eight years or sixty years, as the case may be, shall be determined with reference to the date of birth declared by the Government servant at the time of appointment and accepted by the Appropriate Authority on production, as far as possible, of donfirmatory documentary evidence such as High School or Higher Secondary or Secondary School Certificate or extracts from Birth Register. The date of birth so declared by the Government servant and accepted by the Appropriate Authority shall not be subject to any alteration except as specified in this note. An alteration of date of birth of a Government servant can be made, with the sanction of a Ministry or Department of the Central Government, or the Comptroller and Auditor-General in regard to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, or an Administrator of a Union Territory under which the Government servant is serving, if-
(a) a request in this regard is made within five years of his entry into Government service:
(b) it is clearly established that a genuine bona fide mistake has occurred: and
(c) the date of birth so altered would not make him ineligible to appear in any School or Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 22 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 University of Union Public Service Commission examination in which he had appeared, or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered Government service." The applicant was selected in 1994 to the cadre of IPS and he has represented after a lapse of nearly 15 years, which is not permitted as per the OM cited. Moreover, respondents have just reproduced the date of birth recorded in the UPSC in the service records of the applicant. Therefore, there was no clerical mistake in noting the date of birth of the applicant in the official records. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Civil Appeal No.502 of 1993 -- Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, vide Judgment dated 9th February, 1993 that:
"Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches on the part of the respondent to seek the necessary correction would in any case have justified the refusal of relief to him. His inaction for all this period of about thirty five years from the date of joining service, therefore precludes him from showing that the entry of his date of birth in service record was not correct".
III. The delay of around 15 years in seeking the alteration of the date of birth would make the applicant (sic) ineligible to seek the relief sought. Respondents as well as the applicant have to follow the rules. Any action beyond the purview of rules is not permitted under law as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena judgments, as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court observation in T.Kannan and ors vs S.K. Nayyar (1991) 1 SCC 544 held that ―Action in respect of matters covered by rules should be regulated by rules".
Again in Seighal's case (1992) (1) supp 1 SCC 304 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that ―Wanton or deliberate deviation in implementation of rules should be curbed and snubbed."
In another judgment reported in (2007) 7 SCJ 353 the Hon'ble Apex court held "the court cannot de hors rules.― Thus, the expectation of the applicant seeking a relief which is not in consonance with the instructions on the subject would not be reasonable.
IV. Coming to the core of the dispute, the respondents banked on Rule 16-A of the 1958 rules, which is reproduced hereunder, to reject the claim of the applicant:
"16-А Ассeptance of date of birth:
16(1) For the purpose of determination of the date of superannuation of a member of the service, such date shall be calculated with reference to the date of his birth as accepted by the Central Government under this rule.
16(2) In relation to a person appointed, after the commencement of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Amendment Rules, 1971
(a) Indian Administrative Service under clause (a) or clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) rules, 1954; or
(b) the Indian Police Service under clause (a) or clause (aa) of subrule (1) ofrule 4 ofthe Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954; or
(c) the Indian Forest Service under clause (a) or clause (aa) of subrule (2) of rule 4 of the Indian Forest Service(Recruitment) Rules, 1966;
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.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURUVISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 23 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 16(3) In relation to a person to whom sub-rule (2) does not apply, the date of birth as recorded in the service book or other similar official document maintained by the concerned government shall be accepted by the Central Government, as the date of birth of such person.
16(4) The date of birth as accepted by the Central Government shall not be subject to any alteration except where it is established that a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed in accepting the date of birth under sub-rule (2) or (3)."
As per the Rule, the date of birth declared by the applicant in the application for recruitment to the service shall be accepted by the Central Govt. as the date of birth. The applicant declared 05.08.1965 as date of birth and hence, the same would be construed as the actual date of birth. Scope for change would arise only when a bonafide clerical mistake occurred in noting the date of birth, which is not the case in respect of the applicant. However, applicant has contended that Rule 3 of the 1960 Rules can be invoked to change the date of birth in genuine cases. The Rule 3 of 1960 Rules is hereunder extracted:
"3. Power to relax rules and regulations in certain cases.-
Where the Central Government is satisfied that the operation of-
(i) any rules made or deemed to have been made under the All India Services Act, 1951 (61 of 1951), or
(ii) any regulation made under any such rule, regulating the conditions of service of persons appointed to an All India Service causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may, by order, dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule or regulations, as the case may be, to such extent and subject to such exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in ajust and equitable manner."
The Rule provides for relaxing the conditions of service if they cause any undue hardship. Here comes the controversy with the respondents taking the stand that date of birth is a recruitment condition and not a service condition. Applicant with equal force argues that date of birth is a servicecondition since it has ramifications in regard to the length of serviceе, promotion, pay and allowance, pension etc, which fall within the domainoues of service. However, we are of the view that, it has both the elements and not exclusive of each other. Date of birth is a recruitment condition because it decides the eligibility of the applicant to appear in the Civil Service Exam. After joining the service, it encompasses various issues associated with the career of an employee as pointed out by the applicant. Therefore, assuming that the date of birth has a service element embedded in it, the question that would arise is how and when to apply Rule 3 of 1960 rules. The word 'undue hardship' used in the rule is the key to the answer and it is defined in Duhaime's Law Dictionary, as the special or specified circumstances that partially or fully exempt a person from performance of a legal obligation so as to avoid an unreasonable or disproportionate burden or obstacle. In simple words, it is an obligation, which is not in proportion to the reciprocal cost or benefit. As for example, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities, but when an accommodation becomes too taxing on the organization, it is classified as an undue hardship and is no longer required. Similarly, while a transportation company might have an obligation to accommodate persons with disability, this does not extend to the point where such accommodation would cause the transportation company undue hardship. In regard to undue hardship, Justice Cook of the Newfoundland Unified Court wrote as under:
"Undue hardship is a tough threshold to meet. Synonyms for undue include:
excessive, extreme, improper, unreasonable, unjustified. It is more than awkward or inconvenient."Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 24 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 Taken at face value, the requirement to accommodate up to the point of "undue hardship" might be thought as a ferocious obligation. V. With the above background of what undue hardship would mean in the legal parlance, we now proceed to examine its application to the case of the applicant. It is the claim of the applicant that by not noting the correct date of birth, which has been established through a proper inquiry, his service is being cut short by a period of 13 months and which has repercussions in terms of promotion, pay & allowances and pension. True, in the later phase of a bureaucrat career, he will be scaling on to the top echelons of service and the last leg of the career is indeed crucial. However, having entered into a premium service, applicant need to have been alert and acted in time. Being busy with career is not uncommon and yet, if a right has to be exercised, it has to be exercised within the ambit of rules and law. The word 'undue hardship' is a double edged knife since in the context of the applicant, foregoing a part of the eligible service and in respect of the respondents too, it is undue hardship since any relief granted to the applicant would upset the apple cart, by inviting a flood of similar claims which are in hibernation. The rule would then get circumvented, more as a norm, rather than as exclusive exception, which exactly should not be done, as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the verdict cited supra. In fact, it would invite many applications of similar nature from all others, who did not test the waters as the applicant has attempted. We are privy to similar such cases and therefore, of the view that, after 15 years of joining the service, applicant approaching the Tribunal would be difficult to appreciate. The applicant, in a way, is responsible for a different date of birth to be recorded in the UPSC dossier. Hence, cornering the respondents for not correcting the mistake of the applicant, after the prescribed time period, would not be fair as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Lakshmipathy v. Rai Saheb Pannalal H. Lahoti Charitable Trust,(2010) 1 SCC 287 as under:
"they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own mistake and conveniently pass on the blame to the respondents."
VI. The hardship as expounded by the applicant could have been avoided, if timely action was initiated, rather than looking towards the respondents at a later date. Relaxation of any clause of rule which is causing undue hardship, is generally resorted to when universally it is necessitated to be done. The recent corona pandemic is a classic example where the governmental norms in regard to submission of tax returns, statutory returns and even some leeway in regard to court cases etc. have been relaxed in view of the universality of the hardship experienced by those it mattered. Thus relaxation of rule, in our view, would not be individual specific, but would need to have compelling universal application.
To top it, the Tribunal cannot direct the Departments to relax the rules and accommodate any one. The Apex Court, in Govt. of Orissa v. Hanichal Roy, (1998) 6 SCC 626, where such a direction was issued by a Tribunal, has held as under:
"I. We need not dilate upon the facts in this appeal by special leave against an order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. Special leave, it may be mentioned, was granted only in regard to the two respondents herein. They had put in approximately one and a halfyears' service, but on ad hoc basis. Taking into account the circumstances in which they had so served, the Tribunal held that it found no reason why there should not be a relaxation of the appropriate rule for regularization of their service and ordered accordingly.
2. The Rule that is relevant reads thus:
"14. Relaxation.-- When the Government are of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these Rules in respect of any class or category of persons in public interest."Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 25 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022
3. The Rule requires the Government to form the opinion, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is necessary or expedient to relax any of the provisions of the Rules in public interest in respect of any class or category of persons. We assume for the purposes of this appeal that the case of the respondents herein falls within a "class or category or persons", but we do not think that the Tribunal was right in, in effect, relaxing the appropriate rule itself. Having set out the facts, it should have left it to the Government to take the decision under the rule."
In the instant case, DOPT has examined and decided that it is not a case of 'undue hardship' as argued in para 7 of the reply, relying on the verdicts of the superior judicial fora. We find force in their argument and the same is extracted as under:
"3. In reference to Rule 3 of the AIS (CS-RM) Rule, 1960 as observed by the Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad Bench vide its Order dated 26.07.2013 in ОА No. 593/2010, it is to clarify that benefit to be conferred in the relaxation of any Rule or Rules must be of a nature already provided for in the Rules and Governments are not empowered by this Rule to confer benefits which are not contemplated in the Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme court {in Sh. Syed Kalid Rizvi (supra}) heldthat for invoking Rule 3, requirement is that there should be an appointment to the service in accordance with rules and by operation of the rule, undue hardship has been caused, that too, in an individual case, the Central Government on satisfaction of those conditions, is empowered to relieve such, "undue hardship" by exercising the power to relax the condition. It was further held that the conditions of the recruitment and conditions of services are distinct and the conditions of the appointment according to rules are preceded by condition of service. The conditions of the recruitment cannot be relaxed but the condition of service may be relaxed while exercising power under Rule 3.
4. In the case of D.R. Dhingra, the Hon'ble High Court also reiterated the above judgment of Supreme Court and further held that the 'hardship' is essentially pertaining to the cadre of service, interest of service, however, least to individual interest. Government is not empowered by the rule to confer benefits which are not contemplated in rules. This also cannot be disputed that in the context of 'Undue hardship', undue means something which is not merited by the conduct of the claimant, or is very much disproportionate to it. In the circumstances, the three factors alleged on behalf of the applicant, retirement before the age of superannuation deprivation of salary, allowances and qualifying service before which the applicant would be retired and the effect of his pension as the last drawn salary is the determinant effect which would be lifelong, would not constitute 'undue hardship' as contemplated under the said Rule. Rule 16-А of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 makes it clear that the said Rule is made to limit the scope of correction of date of birth and service record and the intent of the rule is to exclude all other circumstances for the said purpose.― VII. Therefore, to the extent discussed as at above, the decisions of the respondents cannot be found fault with in the context of rules and law.
The applicant has submitted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorkhnath Mandevlekhar dt.15.05.2009 in Civil Appeal No. 3615/2009. We have gone through the same. The said judgment is about validity of document in accepting a given date as date of birth. In the instant case, Govt. of India is not questioning the date of birth as submitted by the State Government through its letter dt. 14.02.2014, but has found the case of the applicant not a fit one to invoke Rule 3 of 1960 Rules under 'undue hardship' clause. Therefore, the said verdict is of no assistance to the applicant.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURUVISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 26 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 VIII. Further, applicant has made one another contention wherein it has been stated that in respect of Sri T. Radha, an IAS officer and Sri Vishwa Ranjan, an IPS officer, alteration of date of birth was effected. We have gone through the relevant orders filed at page Nos. 99 & 100 of the material papers filed with OA. The respondents have not responded to this contention which is vital. These are cases where relaxation of Rule 16- A of the 1958 Rules was effected by invoking Rule 3 of 1960 Rules. Respondents have argued at length that the applicant's case was not of undue hardship. If it be so, it was their onerous responsibility to clarify as to how Rule 3 of 1960 Rules was invoked in respect of the cases cited by the applicant, but not in his case. Justice demands that the applicant be let known the reasons, as otherwise it would tantamount to infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are surprised that there is not even a whisper about the cases cited in the reply statement. Hence, as officers named above have been granted the relaxation, the case of the applicant need also to be examined in the comparative context, as to whether similar relief could be granted. Therefore, abiding by the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govt. of Orissa v. Hanichal Roy in regard to relaxation of a rule, we remit the matter to the respondents to examine in detail and decide the request made by the applicant for alteration of the date of birth in the context of other officers referred to have been granted a similar relief. The respondents are, therefore, directed to take an appropriate decision based on extant rules/law and communicate the same to the applicant through a reasoned and speaking order. Time allowed to take the decision is 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, since different Ministries/ Departments are to be consulted for taking a decision.
IX. With the above direction, the OA is disposed, with no order as to costs.― (emphasis applied) III. As seen from the above judgment of this Tribunal, each and every contention of the applicant in respect of Bonafide mistake, undue hardship and for condonation of the belated request & relax the rule have been addressed and negatived by this Tribunal and the said observations have attained finality as the said order has not been challenged by the applicant.
IV. It is also to be noted that while addressing the issue, this Tribunal observed in its order referred to above, that the applicant declared 05.08.1965 as his date of birth. Hence, the same was construed as his actual date of birth and scope for change of the same would arise only when bonafide clerical mistake had arisen in noting the date of birth, which is not the case of the applicant. Further, in respect of undue hardship, though the rule provides for relaxation of conditions, if they cause any undue hardship, the respondents have taken the stand that date of birth is a recruitment condition and not a service condition. However, though the applicant has argued on the point that date of birth is a Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 27 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 service condition since it has ramification in regard to length of service, promotion, pay and allowances, pension, etc., which fall within the domain of service, while considering the submissions made by both the parties, this Tribunal categorically held that the date of birth is a recruitment condition because it decides the eligibility condition to appear in the Civil Services Examination. After joining the service, it encompasses various issues associated with the career of the employee, as pointed out by the applicant. However, when the applicant, who, himself had recorded his date of birth as 05.08.1965 while making the application as well as the same was recorded in his SSC certificate, was harping on the point of undue hardship, stating that because of the said incorrect date of birth, his service would cut short by 13 months considering his correct date of birth as 23.09.1966. This Tribunal also observed that the applicant, having entered into a premium service, need to have been alert and acted in time, and being busy in career is not uncommon, and however, if a right has to be exercised, it has to be exercised within the ambit of rules and law. This Tribunal also observed that the word „undue hardship‟ is a doubled edged knife, since in the context of the applicant, foregoing a part of the eligible service, and in respect of the respondents too, it is undue hardship, since any relief granted to the applicant would upset the apple cart, by inviting a flood of similar claims, which are in hibernation. The rule would then get circumvented, more as a norm, rather than as exclusive exception, which should not be done, as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this Tribunal observed that "We are privy to similar such cases and therefore, of the view that, after 15 years of joining the service, applicant approaching the Tribunal would be difficult to appreciate. The applicant, in a way, is responsible for a different date of birth to be recorded in the UPSC dossier. "Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 28 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 V. It is also to be noted that after considering the plea of the applicant regarding undue hardship, this Tribunal has held that this Tribunal cannot direct the Department to relax Rules and accommodate anyone, as held by the Supreme court judgment in Govt of Orissa v. Hanichal Roy, (1998) 6 SCC 626. Thereby, the pleas of the applicant vis-à-vis bonafide clerical mistake, undue hardship and relaxation have been completely negatived by this Tribunal on merits. Thus, in our considered view, in making the same submissions in this OA, the principle of estoppel comes into play. However, on the count that justice demands that the applicant be let known the reasons, in respect of the cases cited by him in his representations in the matter of Sri T. Radha, IAS and Sri Viswa Ranjan, IPS, for a limited purpose, this Tribunal, remitted the matter back to the respondents and if the case of the applicant falls on the same footing, direction was issued to consider the case of the applicant as well. However, it can be seen from the orders passed by the DOPT in January, 1993, in the matter of T. Radha, which reads thus:
―ORDER ―WHEREAS, Shri T. Radha had declared 23.01.1956 as his date of Birth in his application for the Civil Service Examination, 1982, but the UPSC had accepted his date of birth as 20.10.1954 on the basis of the entries made in his matriculation certificate, AND WHEREAS the Government of Tamil Nadu has subsequently corrected the date of birth of Shri T. Radha in his matriculation certificate from 20.10.1954 to 23.01.1956.
AND WHEREAS sub-rule (4) of Rule 16A of the AIS (DCRB) Rules permits alteration of date of birth only when it is established that a bonafide clerical mistake has been committed in accepting the date of birth, and the Central Government are satisfied that non-correction of the date of birth will bring undue hardship to the officer.
NOW, therefore, Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under rule 3 of the All India Services (Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 hereby relaxes the rule 16A of the AIS (DCRB) Rules and orders that the date of birth of Shri T. Radha, IAS (AP:83) be altered in the service records from 20.10.1954 to 23.01.1956.
By order and in the name of the President.― Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 29 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 Thus, in the case of Sri T. Radha, the respondent DOPT issued order in January, 1993, correcting his date of birth from 20.10.1954 to 23.01.1956 for the reason that the officer had correctly declared his date of birth as 23.01.1956 in the application for Civil Service Examination, but the UPSC had accepted his date of birth as 20.10.1954 based on the SSC certificate. Therefore, the said officer got his date of birth corrected by the Government of Tamil Naud in his matriculation certificate from 20.10.1954 to 23.01.1956 and thus, he had established that it was a Bonafide clerical mistake. Accordingly, accepting his date of birth in matriculation certificate, correction in his service record was ordered to avoid undue hardship. However, in the matter of the applicant, he had not submitted any such corrected SSC certificate showing his date of birth as 23.09.1966. Thus, the case of the applicant cannot be said to be similar to that of Sri T. Radha.
VI. In so far as the second case referred to by the applicant i.e. Sri Vishva Ranjan, IPS is concerned, correction of his date of birth was ordered on 07.03.2007. It is to be noted that while considering the request of the said officer for correction of his date of birth from 01.04.1947 to 01.04.1952, the authorities have examined the case under Rule 16-A(1), (2) & (4) of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958. As seen from the order dt. 07.03.2007, it is stated that Shri Vishwa Ranjan was appointed to IPS on 11.12.1973 and as per rules, UPSC dossier is the relevant record to decide upon the correct date of birth, but the same was not available as intimated by the DOPT. Therefore, in the absence of UPSC dossier, several documents were perused as evidence including the descriptive roll, dt.
10.05.1974, of NPA, which was actually filled up by him and which was certified to be available in original, showing his date of birth as 01.04.1952; his service book, in possession of IB, Govt. of India, having two bio-data Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 30 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 performance both indicating his date of birth as 01.04.1952; his certificate and mark sheet for 10th Standard in original, indicating his date of birth as 01.04.1952, etc. Despite these crucial documents in support of his claim, showing his correct date of birth as 01.04.1952, somehow, his date of birth was recorded wrongly as 01.04.1947. It is also stated that the Ministry of Law and DOPT, after considering the facts on file, had opined that the issue appeared to be a bonafide clerical mistake. Considering these facts and with the available records, the respondent competent authority, after seeking legal opinion, had considered that there was bonafide clerical mistake in recording the date of birth of Sri Vishwaranjan and, accordingly, the same was corrected, wherein, matriculation certificate along with the mark sheet has been considered as a primary document in recording his date of birth. It is also stated in the said order that the claim of Mr. Vishwaranjan dates back to 1980 and the Government of India had clarified in the year 1994 itself that the date of birth was 01.04.1952. It can be seen from this document, relied by the applicant, at Annexure XII, that Mr. Vishwa Ranjan had pursued his case even though his correct date of birth was recorded in his schooling/ college educational certificates as well as in the official record. However, there was bonafide clerical mistake while recording his date of birth in some official records, for which, he had made lot of persuasion and the same is evident from the official record itself. Finally, it was considered in the year 2007. Therefore, it cannot be said that that the request of Mr.Vishwaranjan had been considered belatedly.
Thus, we are of the view that there is no similarity between the case of the applicant and the two officers referred to above. It is also to be noted that though he has referred to a number of cases, he has failed to make out his case in reference to these two cases. It is also to be noted that it is not the case of the Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 31 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 applicant that while making corrections of date of birth of other officers, they were allowed to maintain two different dates of birth - one, in the school certificate, i.e., SSLC or mark sheet or educational certificates and second, in the service record. From these two cases, it is quite clear that the date of birth claimed by the said two officers is as per the date of birth recorded in the SSC certificate, whereas, the applicant has not got his date of birth corrected in SSC certificate.
VII. It is to be noted that, the applicant himself is ignoring the averments made in his OA that he had himself admitted that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the school records as 05.08.1995 and the same was continued in the SSC and college record and he had no option, but to mention the same date of birth in the application submitted for Civil Service Exam. With this averment, we fail to understand as to who had forced the applicant to mention the said wrong date of birth. It is to be noted that no one had forced the applicant to mention his date of birth as 05.08.1965. Such an averments cannot be accepted as the applicant‟s father was well educated, having studied B.E. and his so called date of birth 23.09.1996, in fact, was registered on 28.09.1996 i.e. within five days after his birth. So the applicant cannot shift the blame to others. Further, when the applicant was having birth certificate that was issued in the year 1995, why he had failed to raise his grievance till after 15 years in 2009, for which, no averment is made in the OA and he is completely silent on this point. VIII. It is also to be noted that the request for correction of date of birth, as per the FR 56, has to be made within five years of entry into government service. Admittedly, the applicant had not done so though he has relied upon the date of birth certificate issued on 02.11.1995. It is not established by the applicant that Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 32 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 it was a genuine bonafide mistake, which was already answered in the earlier round of litigation against the applicant. Under clause (c) under Note 6 of FR 56, the date of birth, so altered, would not make him ineligible to appear in any school or university or UPSC Examination in which he had appeared or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered Government service.
IX. Though the applicant has made very bald and blatant statement that change of his date of birth from 05.08.1965 to 23.09.1966 would not make him ineligible, as per the notification given by the Education Department, published in the AP Gazette by Authority, Hyderabad, on the 20th February 1969, produced by the learned counsel for the Respondents, during the course of arguments, the applicant would be ineligible to appear for SSC/ X class exam, as he would be less than the age of 14 years by the 31st August of the academic year, in which, he had appeared for the said examination. In this regard, learned Counsel for the Respondents has drawn the attention of this Tribunal to Clause VIII (2) of the said notification, which reads thus:
―VII. The Public Examination:- xxxx
2. The name of no pupil shall be included unless he/ she completes the age of 14 years on or before 31st August of the Academic year in which the candidate studies his/ her Xth Class. It shall however, be competent for the unmentioned authorities to relax this rule and to grant exemption.‖ Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to clause (5) of the Subsidiary Rules stipulated in the said notification which reads thus:
―5. Age limit:-The Pupils to be presented must have completed the age of 14 years by 31st August of the Academic Year, in which the candidate studies his/ her Xth Class.
It shall, however, be competent for the unmentioned authority to relax this rule and grant exemption in deserving cases:-
The District Education Officers will grant exemption from the operation of age rules in all cases except in the cases of Government Schools which are attached to colleges in which case the Principal shall exercise the powers.Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 33 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 Note:- The Headmaster has no discretion to withhold recommending the application for age exemption.‖ Thus, on a conjoint reading of the above provisions, it is clear that pupil must have completed the age of 14 years by 31st August of that academic year, in which the candidate studies his / her X class. If the date of birth of the applicant, claimed by the applicant is accepted to be 23.09.1966, he would not complete the age of 14 years by 31st August of 1980. Learned Standing Counsel has also brought to our notice the relevant portion of the Appendix i.e. Form of Declaration to be signed by the father or guardian, which reads as under:
―APPENDIX FORM OF DECLARATION I, ......... parent/ guardian do solemnly and sincerely affirm/ swear that the date of birth of my son/ daughter/ ward is .......... (in words).
Signature or thumb-impression of Father or guardian Station: ....
Date: ....
Solemnly affirmed or sworn ................ this day ............ before me.
* The contents of this affidavit (or solemn affirmation) have been first truly and audibly read over to the parent/ guardian in ........... (language) he being unacquainted with the language (or being blind) who appeared perfectly to understand the same and made his marks thereto (or signed the same) in my presence.
Signature and Designation of Officer, Authority or other person before whom this is affirmed or sworn * N.B:- This has to be used when the deponent is unacquainted with the language of the affidavit or his blind or illiterate.
These statements should be filed in the school for future reference. If this is done, there will be no need for making any alteration therein later. In any event alterations in the date of birth of pupils will not ordinarily be sanctioned after they reach IX class. Subject to these conditions, the Director of Public Instruction, may sanction alterations in the date of birth only after satisfying himself by requiring the production of clearest evidence that the date as already entered on the certificate is incorrect and that the one proposed to be inserted is correct. Applications for alterations in the date of birth will not be entertained after a pupil has completed his school course and appeared for the Secondary School Certificate Public Examination.‖ Admittedly, the applicant appeared for X class exam in April 1981 in the academic year 1980 - 81 and by end of August 1980, the applicant would be less Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 34 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 than 14 years if his date of birth of 23.09.1966, as claimed by him, were to be accepted. Therefore, alteration/ correction of date of birth from 05.08.1965 to 23.09.1965 would make the applicant ineligible to appear for the SSC examination in April 1981 and once he becomes ineligible to appear in the SSC examination, his entry into service vitiates the claim of the applicant on the basis of his education, which is the basic education required under the educational criteria and as a result, will take away his entire service.
X. As seen from the above, for correction of date of birth, in any event, will not ordinarily be sanctioned after the pupil reaches IX class. However, the Director of Public Instructor may sanction alteration in Date of birth only after satisfying himself by requiring the production of clearest evidence that the date, as already entered in the certificate, is incorrect and that the one proposed to be inserted is correct. It is further made clear that applications for alterations in the date of birth will not be entertained after a pupil has completed his school course and appeared for the Secondary School Certificate Public Examination.
According to this, even for correction in school records, the procedure has already been laid and on the face of record, as already observed, correction of date of birth of the applicant from 05.08.1965 to 23.09.1966 would make him ineligible even to acquire SSC qualification as he would be below 14 years by the end of August of the academic year in which he had appeared and acquired the said qualification. At any rate, at this point of time, it is doubtful whether the authorities also have power to relax the rule retrospectively and we have not come across any such case. Moreover, it is beyond our jurisdiction under judicial review power.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURUVISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 35 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 XI. It is further to be noted that, while dealing with similar issue, Hon‟ble Madras High Court, vide their order dt. 11.07.2018, in WP No. 16510 of 2018, in the matter of S. Indhumathi v. The Chief Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others, had observed as under:
―7. It may be true that the petitioner was born on 17.07.1997, but for the purpose of entry into the school, the parents would have given the Date of Birth of the petitioner as 17.05.1997. If the actual Date of Birth 17.07.1997 is taken into account, then the entire qualification obtained by the petitioner/ candidate will have to go, as she could not have been admitted in I Std. based on the date of birth, namely 17.07.1997. In order to admit the petitioner/ student into the School, the Date of Birth has been corrected as 17.05.1997 and that the same continued till the completion of her XII Std. The student could not, later, on the ground that the parents have given the wrong Date of Birth and that needs to be altered, and that for the fault of the parents, the child/ student should not be affected, cannot be accepted. If such a contention is going to be accepted, and that the petitioner wants alteration of the Date of Birth as 17.07.1997, as stated supra, the entire qualification itself vanishes, as the student has no locus-
standi to enter I Std. Based on the Date of Birth as 17.07.1997.
8. In view to the above, this Court cannot decide the issue even based on sympathy. If such contentions are accepted, then it will give a premium for everyone to knock at the doors of the Court to alter the Date of Birth. If for any reason the Date of Birth is altered from 17.05.1997 to 17.07.1997, then the entire qualification obtained by the petitioner is not valid in the eye of law, i.e. she is deemed to be not qualified at all.
9. Hence, for the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.‖ It may be true that the applicant was born on 23.09.1966, but for the purpose of entry into school, his date of birth has been recorded as 05.08.1965.
Accordingly, if the actual date of birth is taken into account, then the entire qualification obtained by the applicant will have to go as the applicant would be ineligible to appear for the SCC Board Examination, as he would be below 14 years of age. In other words, if the date of birth of the applicant, as claimed by the applicant, is taken as 23.09.1966, then it would imply that the applicant had appeared at the SCC examination in April 1981 with the so called wrong date of birth i.e. 05.08.1965. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that he was forced to mention this wrong date of birth in the school records is not acceptable.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURUVISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 36 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 As we already observed that if the date of birth is accepted as 23.09.1966, as claimed by the applicant, the entire qualification obtained by the applicant may become invalid in the eyes of law, as he had to no locus standi to appear for the SSC Board exam in April 1981 and he would be deemed to be not qualified at all. Further, this Tribunal, in the earlier round of litigation as well as the Hon‟ble Madras High Court observed that if such corrections are accepted, even on sympathy, then it will give a premium for everyone to knock the doors of the courts seeking alteration of date of birth.
XII. It is also to be noted that a Division Bench of the Hon‟ble High Court for the State of Telangana, in WP No. 26262 of 2012, vide its Order dt. 30.01.2024, had dealt with an exactly similar issue and we deem it approrpiate to reproduce the relevant observations made therein, hereinbelow:
―13. It is further submitted that the decree of the civil Court stood unchallenged and that it was a contested suit. The Hon'ble Judge was not justified in giving the finding that the petitioner got admission in 9th Class at the age of 11 years and completed 12th Class at the age of 14 years and that the date of birth 29.03.1953 cannot be accepted. The finding of the Hon'ble Judge is erroneous.
Xxxx xxxxx
15. Learned Senior Counsel and Amicus Curiae has supported the report of the Hon'ble Judge. It is submitted that the petitioner has neither pleaded nor produced any material of securing a double promotion. It is further submitted that the petitioner had completed his 12th Grade in the year 1968-69. If the petitioner was born in the year 1953, he would have completed his 12th Grade when he was only 15 years old i.e., two years ahead of the normal/standard time required to clear 12th Grade. It is also submitted that Rule 2-A of the Rules, 1984 is applicable to the petitioner, as there is a pending proceeding on determination of his date of birth (Rule 5 of the Rules, 1984).
Xxx xxxx
21. Perused the report of the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court. The report is pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6964 of 2004. The Hon'ble Judge, having perused the original certificate of Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate (HSSLC), observed that the petitioner has studied 9th Class in the year 1964-65, 10th Class in the year 1965-66, 11th Class in the year 1966-67 and 12th Class in the year 1967-68. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Judge of High Court that petitioner had never got a double promotion or frog leaped a few classes. The Hon'ble Judge held that it is not possible to believe that petitioner had completed 12th Class at the age of 14 years. The material as well as decree passed by civil Court does not inspire confidence that the applicant was born on 29.03.1953. It is further held that if the date of birth is taken to be as 01.07.1949, all the years of study are possible and acceptable. The Hon'ble Judge held that the facts showing that the petitioner had got admission in 9th Class in 1964-65 are inconsonance with the observation of the Hon'ble Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 37 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court's observations are as follows:
―... Certain materials have been placed on record by the High Court on the administrative side of 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 March 29 1953 to be in 6th standard at that time, he would hardly be 8-9 years old.‖ Xxx xxx
28. Disputes with regard to change of date of birth in service record have been considered by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is settled law that ―correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right.‖
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Home Deptt. v. R.Kirubakaran 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155, observed and held as under:
―7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever...‖
30. In Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja and others in Civil Appeal No.5720 of 2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized the law on change of date of birth, which is as under:
―(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.‖ Xxx xxxx
32. Entertaining the claim for correction of date of birth would completely frustrate the objective behind the Rules, 1984. The petitioner is unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of this Court either in law or on facts about the claim for alteration of date of birth. In view of the consistent legal position that the onus is on the applicant to prove about the wrong recording of the date of birth in the service records, the claim for the alteration cannot be entertained. It is settled law that ―correction of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right.‖ It is to be noted that all the aspects being followed with the law settled by the Apex Court in line, the observations in para 33 of the order of the Hon‟ble High Court are crucial, which read thus:Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 38 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 ―33. The petitioner did not make any attempt to get the date of birth corrected in his school records. Upon correction of date of birth in the school records, petitioner could have got the same corrected in the HSSLC as well. However, even this was not done. Therefore, as of today, both in school/college records as well as in the HSSLC, petitioner's date of birth continues to be reflected as 29.03.1953. Permitting petitioner to correct his date of birth in service record would result in incongruous situation where there would be different dates recorded in his school records/HSSLC and service records, which is impermissible. ― Thus, as observed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana after referring to various judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the applicant in the instant case did not make any attempt to get his date of birth corrected in his school records, particulary SSC.
XIII It is pertinent to refer to another judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the State of MP v. Premlal Shrinivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664, wherein it has been held as under:
―8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government service, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the Tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights.‖ (emphasis applied) In a subsequent judgment also, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 held that "...even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right." Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 39 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 Thus, as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court supra, even if the applicant has good evidence, as claimed by him, that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the same cannot be allowed to be corrected at the fag end of his service.
XIV It is also to be noted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of The General Manager, M/s. Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. The Vice President United Mines Mazoor Union & Ors, in Civil Appeal No. 4686 of 2024, vide its judgment dt. 02.04.2024, [2024 INSC 264], after threadbare consideration of the law laid down in its previous judgments, negatived the claim of correction of date of birth and the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court are very much applicable in this matter and the same are extensively extracted herein below:
―16. Having considered the matter in its entirety and the submissions made, this Court is of the opinion that the Award of the CGIT as well as the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that while submitting the Descriptive Roll, the respondent no.3 had himself declared his age as 24 years without any documentary proof and since the date of submission of such Descriptive Roll was 27.12.1972, his date of birth was recorded by the appellant as 27.12.1948. This position continued for almost a decade viz. till 1982, when the respondent no.3 submitted a declaration, on the merger of HSL with SAIL, wherein his date of birth was disclosed as 12.03.1955, though even at such time, again, no documentary proof was furnished by him. The respondent no.3 submitted the so-called proof, which was the STC dated 12.01.1972, only after the issuance of letter dated 24.11.1998, whereby he was required to submit documentary proof of his date of birth. Pausing here, the Court would note that by reckoning his date of birth as 12.03.1955, the respondent no.3 would be much below the age of 18 years at the time of initial employment, which was the minimum requirement in law. Thus, it is clear that had the respondent no.3 declared his so-called correct date of birth, obviously he would not have been given the employment.
17. From this point of view, it is clear that the disclosure of the originallygiven date of birth by the respondent no.3 was a well-thought out plan hatched by him, at the relevant time. His conduct cannot be simply brushed aside on a plea that there was an error on the part of the appellant in recording his date of birth.
Another doubt cast on the conduct of the respondent no.3 is him not acting on time, which raises a question about the bonafides of his claim of having been born on 12.03.1955. In fact, even after giving a declaration on 14.08.1982, on the merger of HSL with SAIL, the copy of the STC was never provided to the appellant, which was done only in response to the letter dated 24.11.1998, requiring him to submit documentary proof of his date of birth. Examined thus, the following is evincible: (a) the Competent Authority noticed discrepancy in the date of birth in the records of the appellant and, upon due scrutiny, opined that the declaration of date of birth made by the respondent no.3 at the first point of time, i.e., 27.12.1948, should be taken as his date of birth, as till 1998 no Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 40 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 documentary proof was given, and; (b) the respondent no.3 would not have been able to legally come into employment on 27.12.1972, had he disclosed his date of birth as 12.03.1955. No fault can be found with the appellant on this score. It is a just and reasonable conclusion by the appellant's Competent Authority. Moreover, reckoning his date of birth as 27.12.1948, the respondent no.3 has been permitted to work for 36 years, which by itself is a sufficient period of employment. Hence, on this count too, we are unable to show any indulgence to the respondent no.3.
18. Undoubtedly, a decision on the issue of date of birth is as important for the employer as it is for the employee. Reference in this regard can be made to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v Shib Kumar Dushad, (2000) 8 SCC 696. As expressed in Union of India v C Rama Swamy, (1997) 4 SCC 647, ―... the court also ought not to grant any relief even if it is shown that the date of birth, as originally recorded, was incorrect because the candidate concerned had represented a different date of birth to be taken into consideration obviously with a view that that would be to his advantage. ...‖.
19. Moreover, the principles of estoppel would come into play in the present case. The respondent no.3, having stated on 27.12.1972, that his date of birth was 27.12.1948, cannot be permitted to raise the claim of his date of birth being 12.03.1955, that too on 14.08.1982, i.e., almost after a decade (counting from 27.12.1972 to 14.08.1982). Even the STC was submitted after the appellant requested the respondent no.3 for documentary proof on 24.11.1998.
20. Although, we have examined the matter from the lens of fraud as well, in view of our discussions hereinabove, the said aspect does not merit deeper probe. We leave it at that. For the present, it would suffice to refer to a pronouncement of recent vintage by this Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v T P Nataraja, (2021) 12 SCC 27, where earlier precedents in Home Department v R Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155; State of Madhya Pradesh v Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664; Life Insurance Corporation of India v R Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781 and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 were considered. Although this Court in T P Nataraja (supra) was looking at the facts therein, in the context of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974, the principle of law laid down would equally apply insofar as change of date of birth in service records is concerned, with which we concur:
―11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarised as under:
(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also more particularly when it is made at the fag-end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.‖
21. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the much-delayed disclosure of the date of birth as 12.03.1955 by the respondent no.3, coupled with his initial declaration and the admitted position that based on such initial declaration, he had received employment, as otherwise based on 12.03.1955, he could not have been legally appointed due to being under-age, there is no manner of doubt that the respondent no.3, irrespective of his real date of birth, for the purpose of employment under the appellant, cannot be allowed the purported rectification/correction of date of birth to 12.03.1955. He would have to, necessarily, be content with his service and benefits accounted taking his date of birth as 27.12.1948.― Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 41 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 On juxtaposition of the above judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court with the facts of the case on hand, it would be clear that the principle of estoppel would apply in the present case, as the applicant had himself declared his date of birth as 05.08.1965 in the school/ college records, UPSC application and the service record. Further, as in the case before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the applicant herein, having entered into service in 1994, raised his grievance regarding correction of his date of birth only in 2009 i.e. after 15 years of service. Thus, on delay and laches also, as ordained by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the case of the applicant would not succeed. Furthermore, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the above case, clearly held that on the strenth of the date of birth originally declared by Respondent No.3 therein, he had obtained employment, as otherwise, he could not have been legally appointed being under-aged. Even in the instant case, taking the date of birth of the applicant as 05.08.1965, he was allowed to appear for SSC exam, which paved the way for his subsequent higher education and the same date of birth was entered by the applicant in the UPSC application as well as in the service record at the time of his entry into service. Drawing an anology with the case before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, if the date of birth of the applicant were to be taken as 23.09.1966, the applicant would not have been legally eligible to appear for SSC exam, thereby, the very foundation of his basic education, followed by his furter education, would fall to ground. Thus, the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the above cases are exactly applicable to the case of the applicant.
XV Further, in a recent judgment, Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6847 of 2024, vide its judgment, dt. 22.01.2025, Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 42 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 after referring to various precedents on the subject, has dismissed the claim of an employee and the relevant observations are as under:
―17. In such cases, where a government employee seeks to change his/her date of birth in the service record after spending considerable time of service or close to his retirement, where postponement of the date of birth is asked, it is obvious that it has far reaching effect, if permitted. If a government employee seeks change of date of birth to mean that he was born on a later date, compared to the date of birth recorded in his service book, it means that on the date of his appointment he was not of a particular age and was younger than what he claimed at the time of entry in service. In a given case, this can have bearing on the issue of eligibility itself. Also, when a government employee claims that he was born on a later date, it obviously has an effect on seniority at the time of appointment. In a given case, where a batch of employees is appointed on the same date, the seniority may change and such change in service book can adversely affect seniority of other co-employees. Also, the aspect of the concerned government having to pay him salary for longer period than what was expected at the time of entry in service, also needs serious consideration. If a government employee was younger during his tenure, he might not be considered for certain benefits, which, in a given case, might have been already availed and enjoyed. These are some of the situations and effects that are relevant in our opinion, when a government employee says that he was born later than the date of birth recorded in his service book. Needless to mention that this is not an exhaustive list of possible situations. In our opinion, such situations must be avoided and therefore requests for change in date of birth beyond reasonable time should not be permitted. In the present case, it is 5 years under the applicable rule.― Xxx xxxx
28. In the light of what is observed hereinabove, when the impugned order is perused, it is seen that the evidentiary value of affidavit of the Petitioner's father, the effect of order of the Magistrate and also the effect of Rule 38(2)(f) of MCS Rules of 1981 is considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also considered the belated request made by the Petitioner seeking order from the Tribunal almost at the end of service tenure and the request is denied. The Tribunal has also considered the case of the Petitioner regarding the circumstances in which his father allegedly revealed the correct date of birth in the informal discussion at native place and the WP.6847.2024 (J) C.doc evidentiary value of case and affidavit based on it. The reasons given by the Tribunal as well as the conclusions drawn, are based on material on record. The view taken is a probable view. There is no perversity or jurisdictional transgression or error apparent on the face of the record.Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 43 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 XVI Thus, it is clear that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon‟ble High Courts, in umpteen number of cases, held that the employee does not have any inherent right to seek for change of date of birth in the service record and such an application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, too. In the instant case, the applicant joined service as an IPS officer in the year 1994 and, after a lapse of 15 years, all of a sudden, he made a representation for change of his date of birth in 2009. As the applicant himself had declared his date of birth in the UPSC application and considering the minimum age required to appear at the SSC examination, it is clear that had the applicant declared his so called correct date of birth of 23.09.1966, obviously, he would have become ineligible to appear at the SSC exam. As a corollary, perhaps, he would not have been given employment also. Thus, the so called correct date of birth of the applicant, as claimed by him, would make him ineligible to appear for the SSC exam, which would consequently makes him ineligible to seek employment also, which he had secured in the year 1994 and continued and progressed in his career.
XVII Thus, the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgments cited supra. Accordingly, when the respondents passed a reasoned order, in detail, comparison with other employees, as claimed by the applicant, is not tenable as there are dissimilarities, and the case of the applicant stands on a different footing, as narrated supra. It is reiterated that, the grievance of the applicant was considered threadbare by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation and the observations, which were against the applicant, were allowed to attain finality as the same were not challenged before a higher forum and, therefore, the applicant is estopped from raising the same issues again and again. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 44 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 XVIII It is to be noted that some of the judgments relied upon by the applicant were considered by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation in detail and, therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, while making her arguments are not applicable, as each case has to be considered on its own merits, as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Further, the issue of the employee becoming ineligible to appear for SSC / Matriculation examination, in the event of correction of his date of birth, as claimed by the employee concerned, was not considered by the Hon‟ble Courts in the cases cited by the applicant. Moreover, all the pleas taken by the applicant were considered and rejected by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. The only point, on which the matter was remitted back to the respondent authorities in the earlier round of litigation, was to decide whether the claim of the applicant, in the context of dates of birth of two officers, viz., Sri T. Radha, IAS and Sri Vishwa Ranjan, IPS, getting rectified/ corrected, is similar to that of the said officers. The respondents, vide the impugned order, have distinguished the case of the applicant from that of the said officers and the same has been demonstrated in this order supra.
XIX Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, relevant rules and law, as already observed by this Tribunal in the earlier rounds of litigation, the enquiry reports submitted by the State Revenue authorities will not be of much help as the applicant himself, hailing from well educated family, had declared his date of birth as 05.08.1965. As already observed, we are of the considered view that sympathetic consideration will lead to opening of flood gates and will give privilege to the employees to claim alteration of date of birth after lapse of the prescribed period or at the fag end of their service.
Accordingly, no case is made out by the applicant.Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 45 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 OA 021/0081/2022 XX. In view of the above discussion, we see no merit in the OA and the OA is, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr.Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member(A) Member(J)
/evr/
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
VISWESWARA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ Page 46 of 46 gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.14 17:07:49+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0