Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
S.G. Krishnam Raju - Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar Andhra University - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 30031 of 2018
Decided On : 23-03-2023
For the Petitioner: A. Padma.
For the Respondent: K. Jyothi Prasad.
A stale claim for rectification of date of birth, unsupported by overwhelming evidence, is barred by time and laches.
Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - DATE OF BIRTH RECTIFICATION - DELAY AND LACHES - EDUCATION RECORDS - MATRICULATION CERTIFICATE - G.O.Ms.No.430, EDUCATION (EE.1) DEPARTMENT, DATED 31.12.1992 - LIMITATION - PUBLIC POLICY - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED WITH COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to rectify his date of birth from 14.09.1976 to 14.06.1978, as recorded in his Matriculation Certificate, to delay his age of superannuation. The petitioner submitted various documents, including a birth certificate and a Grampanchayat certificate, to support his claim. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner's claim was barred by time and that the petitioner had not approached the authorities within three years from the date of issue of the Matriculation Certificate, as required by G.O.Ms.No.430, EDUCATION (EE.1) DEPARTMENT, DATED 31.12.1992.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim was stale and devoid of merits. The court noted that the petitioner had approached the authorities only in 2018, after 26 years from the date of issue of the Matriculation Certificate. The court also found that the petitioner's claim was not supported by overwhelming evidence and that it was highly improbable that his Date of Birth would be 14.06.1978.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's claim for rectification of his date of birth was barred by time? 2. Whether the petitioner had approached the authorities within three years from the date of issue of the Matriculation Certificate, as required by G.O.Ms.No.430, EDUCATION (EE.1) DEPARTMENT, DATED 31.12.1992?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's claim was barred by time and laches. The court noted that the petitioner had not approached the authorities within three years from the date of issue of the Matriculation Certificate, as required by G.O.Ms.No.430, EDUCATION (EE.1) DEPARTMENT, DATED 31.12.1992. The court also found that the petitioner's claim was not supported by overwhelming evidence and that it was highly improbable that his Date of Birth would be 14.06.1978.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
ORDER :
Heard the submissions of Ms. Popuri Lakshmi Priyanvitha, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. A. Padma, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Ms. Sanutha Patcha, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Sai Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents.
2. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as under :
“It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent though the mistake committed by the 2nd respondent by issuing proceedings vide No.E1(Supdt)/Genuinness verification/2018, dated 23.07.2018 refusing to correcting the date of birth from 14.09.1976 to 14.06.1978 is as illegal, improper and arbitrary and consequently be set aside the impugned proceedings vide No.E1 (Supdt)/Genuinness verification/2018, dated 23.07.2018 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that he is an employee in Dr. Reddy Labs, Hyderabad and that the employer pointed out discrepancy in the Date of Birth of the Writ Petitioner, based on several documents submitted by the Writ Petitioner. It is submitted that the Writ Petitioner’s correct Date of Birth is 14.06.1978, whereas in the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Andhra University on 13.11.1992, his Date of Birth is wrongly recorded as 14.09.1976 instead of 14.06.1978. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner further submits that incorrect recording of the Writ Petitioner’s Date of Birth by the Matriculation Board is affecting his age of superannuation and the Writ Petitioner seeks to rectify the said date. It is his case that the Respondents namely the Registrar and Chief Controller of Examination of the Andhra University have declined to make any changes by passing the Impugned Order, dated 23.07.2018 (Ex.P1).
4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner has submitted the following :
(1) VII Class certificate (Ex.P4) – DOB 14.06.1978.
(2) Matriculation Certificate (Ex.P5) – DOB 14.09.1976 issued on 13.11.1992.
(3) Certificate issued by the Grampanchayat, Jaggampeta, East Godavari District (Ex.P3)–DOB 14.06.1978 issued on 13.08.2008.
(4) Aadhar showing the year of birth as 1976.
(5) Pan No.BPXPS5494H – DOB 14.09.1976.
(6) Passport – DOB 14.09.1976.
5. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that in the first document, i.e., the Writ Petitioner’s VIIth Class Certificate, his Date of Birth is recorded as 14.06.1978.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner also places reliance on the Certificate issued by the Grampanchayat, dated 13.08.2008 to establish that Date of Birth of the Writ Petitioner is 14.06.1978. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that since these are the documents, which are the earliest in point of time, the Date of Birth mentioned therein, i.e., 14.06.1978, is to be taken as the correct Date of Birth.
7. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the Writ Petitioner has approached the Respondents Authority belatedly and as per the Rules, the candidates who are desirous of getting their Date of Birth altered/modified should approach the Respondent Authority within three years from the date completion of Matriculation Examination, whereas, admittedly, the Writ Petitioner has approached the Respondents Authority only in the year 2018 (i.e. after 26 years from the date of issue of Matriculation Certificate). Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that even the record pertaining to the Writ Petitioner may not be traceable at this point of time. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents that as per G.O.Ms.No.430, EDUCATION (EE.1) DEPARTMENT, dated 31.12.1992, the alteration/modification concerning Date of Birth can be made only within three years from the date of completion of course.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has placed on record a Judgment rendered by the Composite High Court of A
