The judgment recognized the right to rectify Government Records as a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a) and emphasized the importance of identity and the limitations on the period for making corrections.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri G. Venkateswarulu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned Standing Counsel for SERP appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to correct the date of birth and the name of the father of the Writ Petitioner in the HRMS Record. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that while the actual date of birth of the Writ Petitioner is 18/9/1968 and his father's name is Sri P. Gangappa, a mistake had crept-in entering the particular data as regards the Writ Petitioner in the Government Records incorrectly.

3. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that he has submitted all the correct information to the Official Respondents at the time of joining of service, whereas at some stage, on account of inadvertence, the Official Respondents have entered the data in the HRMS Records incorrectly as indicated above.

4. In order to put a quietus to the matter, on the last occasion, this Court was desirous of fetching the Original Application submitted by the Writ Petitioner along with the relevant documents submitted by him at the time of seeking employment.

5. Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned Standing Counsel for SERP appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has filed the Counter Affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with the original documents. The Application submitted by the Writ Petitioner for the post of Basic Level Community Worker would correctly indicate his date of birth as 18/9/1968 and the name of his father as Sri P. Gangappa.

6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that even the Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh, would indicate exactly the same details as regards the date of birth as (as 18/9/1968) and the name of the father of the Writ Petitioner as (as Sri P. Gangappa).

7. Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned Standing Counsel for SERP appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 would fairly submit that while entering of data into the computer, at some stage, a mistake has inadvertently crept in and the Writ Petition may be disposed of in terms of the details as submitted in the Application by the Writ Petitioner at the basic level and also as per the Secondary School Certificate.

8. At this stage, this Court deems it extremely important and relevant to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/Father Hari Singh) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Others ((2021) 7 SCC 535). In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has recognised the right to rectify the Government Records, under certain conditions as an inherent right of an individual, taking this right to the level of a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a).

9. In Para No.123 of Jigya Yadav's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the identity of an individual is the most closely guarded areas of the Constitutional scheme in India. In Para No.125, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the identity (of an individual) is an amalgam of various internal and external factors including acquired characteristics of an individual and name can be regarded as one of the foremost indicators of identity.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court held at Para No.136 of the above referred Judgment that the limitation as regards maximum period up to which changes can be permitted also requires a different approach in the case of this nature. At Para No.136, the Hon'ble Apex Court had recognised helplessness/hardship surrounding the young age which disables a young person to approach the Authorities within time. The Court had noted that due to young age and inadvertence including being casual and indolent, a student may fail to identify the errors or to understand the probable impact of those errors and accordingly, may not apply for rectification immediately. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered a situation where it is