SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Versus
M. HAYAGREEV SARMA
Civil Appeal No. 915 of 1987{From the Judgment and Order dated October 18, 1985 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in R.P. No. 786 of 1984} decided on April 6,1990
Advocates appeared :
A.S. Nambiar, Senior Advocate (T.V.S.N. Chari, Advocate, with him) for the Appellants; Respondent-in-person.
Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act - Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 - Rule 5 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 309 – Employment and Service matter - Alteration of respondents date of birth - Selection and appointment - Whether alteration of respondents date of birth was permissible after enforcement of 1984 Rules - Respondent was appointed as Audit Clerk in Department of Examiner of Accounts, Local Fund Accounts, through a competitive lamination held in year 1956 - After his selection and appointment be commenced his training with effect from November 12, 1956 - On completion of his training he was posted as Auditor Clerk on January 26, 1957 - Subsequently, he was promoted to post of District Inspector of Local Fund Accounts - At time of his joining service March 9, 1932 was recorded as his date of birth in service book on basis of SSLC Certificate - He made an application on January 5, 1962 for alteration of his date of birth as entered in his service book, on ground that his date of birth as recorded in his service book was apparently wrong and in correct in view of his elder brothers date of birth, who was also in government service, recorded as September 2, 1931 - Held, The 1984 Rules apply to all persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with affairs of State - These Rules prescribe conditions of service of State employees, having statutory force, being framed under the legislative power conferred on the Governor under Proviso to Article 309 of Constitution - There is, therefore, no question of repugnancy between Rule 5 and Section 9 - It is well settled that question of repugnancy cannot arise if State makes law in exercise of its legislative powers in respect of an entry specified in List II of Seventh Schedule, even though it may incidentally trench upon a law made by Union in respect of a matter referable to an entry in Union List of Seventh Schedule - Rule 5 and Section 9 of Act operate in different areas and there is no question of conflict in two provisions - Set aside order of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal – Appeal allowed.
Judgment
SINGH, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated October 18, 1985 declaring Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 1984 Rules) void and directing the appellants to consider the respondents application for alteration of his date of birth in the service records in accordance with the extracts from birth register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act,
2. The respondent was appointed as Audit Clerk in the Department of Examiner of Accounts, Local Fund Accounts, through a competitive lamination held in the year 1956. After his selection and appointment be commenced his training with effect from November 12, 1956. On completion of his training he was posted as Auditor Clerk on January 26, 1957. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of District Inspector of Local Fund Accounts. At the time of his joining service March 9, 1932 was recorded as his date of birth in the service book on the basis of SSLC Certificate. He made an application on January 5, 1962 for alteration of his date of birth as entered in his service book, on the ground that his date of birth as recorded in his service book was apparently wrong and in correct in view of his elder brothers date of birth, who was also in government service, recorded as September 2, 1931. The respondent urged that the entry with regard to his date of birth in the service book should be altered and the date March 9, 1932 should be substituted by August 27,1933 which according to him was the correct date of his birth. The authorities advised the respondent to submit a revised application in terms of the instructions contained in the Government Order No. 1263 dated May 6, 1961. The respondent thereupon submitted a revised application on September 24, 1964 for alteration of his date of birth, that application was forwarded to the Head Master of the school in which the respondent had 1ast studied for verification. After obtaining the view of all authorities including the Head Master of the school, the, respondents case was placed before the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Head of Department for necessary orders. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts after considering all relevant documents relied upon by the respondent, and also the comments of officers, rejected the respondents prayer for alteration of his date of birth by his Order No. 69918/1209/Admn/66-7 dated January 5, 1968 on the ground that the correctness of respondents elder brothers date of birth was not established.
The respondent did not take any further action in the matter for alteration of his date of birth between 1968 to 1983.
3. On April 10, 1983 the Governor of Andhra Pradesh Promulgated Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Conditions of Service) Ordinance 5 of 1983 providing for declaration and alteration of date of birth of State Government employees. The Ordinance laid down that every government employee should make a declaration regarding his date of birth within one month of joining service and on the receipt of such declaration the appropriate authority was required to make necessary enquiries determining the date of birth of the employee. It further provided that if no such declaration was made by the employee the Head of the office, should determine the date of birth of the employee in accordance with the records as may be available to him after giving opportunity to the employee within six months from the date on which the employee joins service. The Ordinance further provided that the provisions contained therein will not apply to those who failed to the apply for the alteration of date of birth in accordance with law applicable to them prior to the commencement of the Ordinance or if such an application had been made and rejected. Thus the Ordinance clearly laid down that the opportuni
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.