Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 867
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J.
Sankarappa - Appellant
Versus
APSPDCL Chairman MD Tirupati and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 41332 of 2016
Decided On : 20-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha
For the Respondent: Venkata Rama Rao Kota
Claims for changes in recorded dates of birth must be raised timely; late disputes reflect intention to gain undue benefits and are generally viewed skeptically by courts.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Constitutional Principles - Clause 10(2)(a) and (d) of B.P.Ms.No.972 dated 05.11.1984 - Petition challenging the refusal to correct the date of birth in service records as illegal and arbitrary - Petitioner sought declaration and consequential benefits upon claim of erroneous age entry in records, contradicting prior affirmations. (Paras 1, 7, 24)
(B) Public Employment - Timing of Claims - The fact that an employee raises a dispute regarding date of birth at the end of their service creates a presumption of mala fides and an intention to gain undue benefit. (Paras 16, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed in 1986, contested changes in recorded date of birth but failed to object for decades despite consistent acknowledgment of the corrected date in various documents. (Paras 3, 23)
Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed as the respondent followed procedure correctly and the claim lacked foundation, reaffirming established legal principles concerning timely objections in service matters. (Paras 34)
Issues: Whether the petitioner could dispute their recorded date of birth after many years of acknowledgment. (Para 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that last-minute disputes regarding age often reflect an attempt to extend service beyond retirement, with insufficient grounds for a claim. Consistent acknowledgment of the corrected date rooted in service records weakened the petitioner's stance. (Paras 26, 28, 34)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeks correction of date of birth. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner’s employment history and claims regarding birth date. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. respondents' counter on birth date administrative procedures. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. arguments regarding mala fides and procedural adherence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. core issues presented for judicial consideration. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. court’s analysis of factual discrepancies regarding birth date. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. judicial precedent shaping correction standards for birth dates. (Para 24 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. burden of proof regarding claims of malafide actions. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. principle of approbate and reprobate in legal arguments. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 10. court affirms the respondent's decision. (Para 33) |
| 11. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 34 , 35) |
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition is instituted, seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Memo No.DEE/O/HUP/Admin./JAO2573/2016, dated 19.08.2016, refusing to change the date of birth of the petitioner at the verge of his retirement as illegal, arbitrary, and for direction to grant all the consequential benefits.
2. Heard Sri B. Abhay Siddhant Mootha, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri P.Venkata Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
Brief case of the petitioner:-
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Helper on 25.08.1986 in Rural Electric Co-operative Society, Kadiri, in the erstwhile Ananthapuram District. Thereafter, on 08.11.1986, the petitioner joined the service of the A.P. State Electricity Board, presently known as A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, as a Watchman by following due procedure. It is claimed by the petitioner that he is illiterate and was asked to go for a medical examination. Accordingly, he was examined by the Doctor on 10.11.1986 and the said Doctor issued a Physical Fitness Certificate, wherein, according to the petitioner’s statement, his age was 25 years, and by appearance, it was about 28 years.
4. According to the petitioner, in the said certificate, his age was altered from 25 years to 28 years. As a result, the year of date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 1961 in the Physical Fitness Certificate, and the same was also entered in his service record as 25.08.1961.
5. Subsequently, his age was altered from 25.08.1961 (25 years) to 10.11.1958 (28 years). It is further the case of the petitioner that he was promoted from the post of Helper to Assistant Lineman on 12.01.1992 and ultimately, he was promoted to the post of Lineman on 16.01.2010.
6. It is further case of the petitioner that, in the year of 2010, he appeared for the 9th class examination conducted by the District Common Education Board, Ananthapur as a private candidate, wherein he stated his Date of Birth as 10.11.1958 only (corresponding to 28 years). The petitioner claims that, after knowing about the alteration of his Date of Birth in the service record, he submitted representations to the 3rd respondent. In response, the 3rd respondent, after obtaining clarification from the 2nd respondent regarding the change of Date of Birth, ultimately, vide No.DEE/O/HUP/Admin./JAO2573/2016 dated 19.08.2016, turned down the petitioner’s claim for change of Date of Birth.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition seeking to set aside Memo dated 19.08.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent and grant all consequential benefits. Hence, the Writ Petition.
Case of the respondents Corporation:-
8. Per contra, the respondents Corporation filed its counter affidavit, inter alia, denying the assertions made in the writ affidavit and also stated that, at the time of joining the service, the petitioner was illiterate and after joining, he has submitted Medical Certificate issued by the Government Doctor as proof of his age. As per the said certificate, his age, according to the statement
