R. Kantha Rao, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is a General Mazdoor in the respondent company. He submits that on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he was appointed as Badli Worker on 19.11.1982. In the records of the respondent company, his qualification was entered as 9th class. The Transfer Certificate issued by the Zilla Parishad Secondary School, Bayyaram, Vurgumpad Taluq, Khammam District discloses that he discontinued 10th class and his dater of birth is 25.06.1962. The petitioners case is that at the time of his initial appointment, he produced the Transfer Certificate, but the appointing authorities erroneously recorded his age as 29 years at the time of entering into service as on 19.11.1982 without any basis and not taking into consideration the date of birth mentioned in the Transfer Certificate. According to him, it is not a mistake and it is on account of non-application of mind. As a result of wrong entry of the date of birth made at the time of his initial appointment, the petitioner states that he was forced to retire from service on 31.08.2014 instead of 30.06.2022.

3. The petitioner submits that the officials of the respondent company are in the habit of entering the date of birth of the employees erroneously on their own which also happened in his case. On receiving the copy of the Form-PS-3 filled by the Company, he was shocked to notice the wrong entry of his date of birth by the respondent company. He made sincere efforts to obtain certificate from the Employment Exchange, but ultimately in its letter dated 16.06.2011, the Employment Exchange responded stating that it recorded the name of the petitioner as X0210 (VII to IX) class on 01.09.1997 while allocating the Card No. SC/3576/77. The petitioner submits that on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he was appointed in the respondent company, after his appointment, the said entry had been removed from the Register of the Employment Exchange. The petitioner received information that the records would be kept only for 3 years in case of general and 5 years in case of SC and ST candidates and thereafter, they will be destroyed. Thus, after the petitioner secured employment his name and the related entry were deleted.

4. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.04.1999 to the respondent company to correct his date of birth on the basis of the Transfer Certificate. On the said representation, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter to the Additional Chief Engineer stating that the petitioner was given appointment on 01.01.1983 through Employment Exchange and also that he enrolled his name with 10th class TC, according to which, his date of birth is 25.06.1962. Thus, the 3rd respondent recommended his case to the Age Determination Committee in the light of the Circular dated 01.08.1988 as there is glaring disparity between the date of birth recommended and the apparent age of the petitioner.

5. The General Manager referred the case of the petitioner to the 5th respondent on 11.08.2001. Thereafter, the Age Determination Committee met on 25.08.2001 and assessed the age of the petitioner as per the letter of the General Manager dated 11.08.2001. The said Apex Committee decided the age of the petitioner as 47 years as on 28.08.2001.

6. According to the petitioner, the Age Assessment Committee had not disclosed basing on which evidence his age was determined by it as 47 years as on 28.08.2001 and they never disputed the genuineness of the Transfer Certificate. The version of the petitioner is that the assessment made by the Age Assessment Committee is contrary to the procedure prescribed by law as well as the Rules and Regulations of the respondent Company. There was no scientific analysis made by the respondent company which can form the basis for determination of his age, and the Age Assessment Committee totally ignored the Transfer Cert