( 1 ) THIS case came up before this Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court. The controversy is short and the facts have been dealt in the order of reference. It relates to change of date of birth of the writ petitioner.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner was the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal. He had been originally recruited as a Graduate engineer Trainee in 1974. He was appointed as Junior Engineer, Electrical in the erstwhile A. P. S. E. B. on 22. 8. 1976. The respondents 2 and 3 and the writ petitioner were asked to produce certificates regarding proof of their date of birth at the time of their appointment. The writ petitioner, at the time of entering into service, declared his date of birth as 4. 1. 1945 which was entered on the front page of his service book opened at the time of his recruitment. This was authenticated by him. Thereafter the writ petitioner went on deputation to the Electrical inspectorate Organisation in 1983. He was permanently absorbed in Government service on 7. 5. 1991. The APSEB, on 2. 6. 1991, furnished all the required particulars of the employees who were absorbed in the government service to the Government. On 1. 7. 1991 the Chief Electrical Inspector, government of A. P. issued a seniority list of all the absorbed Engineers. As per the recorded date of birth of the writ petitioner he had to retire from service in January, 2003. The writ petitioner was placed in the seniority list of Deputy Electrical Inspectors above the Respondents 2 and 3. The respondents 2 and 3 had to retire after the writ petitioner. Therefore they had genuine expectation of getting promotion at the time of retirement of the writ petitioner. However, the Chief Electrical Inspector i. e. , 5th respondent passed a suo motu order altering the date of birth of the writ petitioner to 10. 10. 1947 from 4. 1. 1945 and as such the writ petitioner would continue to be in service till October, 2005. This would adversely affect the respondents 2 and 3 and they would loose the chances of promotion. The recorded date of birth of the writ petitioner was changed and it is not disputed by the writ petitioner that his date of birth was originally recorded as 4. 1. 1945. However the writ petitioner submitted that after completion of his Degree in Engineering, he came to know that his date of birth was wrongly entered as 4. 1. 1945 and his correct date of birth was 10. 10. 1947. The register maintained under the Registrar of births and Deaths Act (Birth Extracts) shows that he was born on 10. 10. 1947. Therefore he filed a suit being O. S. No. 67 of 1971 on the file of the I-Asst. District Munsiff, gudiwada for correction of his date of birth from 4. 1. 1945 to 10. 10. 1947. Andhra university was impleaded as defendant in the suit. The Court, by its judgment dated 24. 6. 1971, declared his correct date of birth as 10. 10. 1947. The defendant was asked to make necessary corrections. The suit had been filed by the writ petitioner when he had not joined the service. The Andhra university made the correction in the certificates on 27. 2. 1989. By that time he was in service having been appointed in 1976. The corrections have not been carried by the Andhra University, although the judgment and decree had been given on 24. 6. 1971. After the decree was executed by the Andhra University, the writ petitioner requested the authorities of A. P. S. E. B. to make entry of his correct date of birth. They did not make any correction till he was absorbed in the Government service on 7. 5. 1991. Then he made a representation to the Chief Electrical Inspector to government on 9. 12. 1991. The representation was not decided. Then he made another representation. A. P. TRANSCO, by its letter dated 17. 7. 1999, asked him to approach the chief Electrical Inspector to Government for change of his date of birth. He filed o. A. No. 5445 of 1999 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by its order dated 8. 9. 1999, directed the r