Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 25022

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J
Vanam Venkateswarlu – Appellant
Versus
Government of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.20324 OF 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.V. Krishnaiah
For the Respondents: Government Pleader, G. Venkateshwarlu

An authority cannot reject a government employee's request for alteration of date of birth on the ground of delay if the initial representation was submitted within the statutory limit prescribed by the governing service rules.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 - Rule 2 - Correction of date of birth - Petitioner sought correction of date of birth within one month of joining service - Authorities ignored representation and subsequently rejected it without proper consideration - Held, the rejection was contrary to record as the application was filed within the period prescribed by the Rules. (Paras 5, 8, 10)

(B) Administrative Law - Right to be heard and application of mind - Orders rejecting requests for alteration of date of birth issued without due inquiry or application of mind - Held, such orders are unsustainable in law. (Paras 8, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Audit Officer in 1997. He submitted a representation for the correction of his date of birth from 21.04.1967 to 21.04.1969 within one month of joining duty. The authorities failed to address this representation timely and in later years rejected his request for alteration of his date of birth after he was promoted to the Indian Administrative Service, claiming it had attained finality.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had indeed submitted his representation within the stipulated statutory period of one month as required by the 1984 Rules. Consequently, the rejection orders were deemed illegal, arbitrary, and passed without application of mind.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's request for correction of date of birth was time-barred and whether the authorities acted lawfully in rejecting his representation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a government employee makes a declaration/application for alteration of date of birth within the timeframe prescribed by the relevant rules, the authorities are duty-bound to examine the merits of the case in compliance with the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, rather than summarily rejecting them.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. nature of the petitioner's claim regarding date of birth correction. (Para 2 , 3)
2. statutory provisions governing service records and alteration procedures. (Para 4)
3. contention regarding compliance with statutory time limits. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's interpretation of statutory obligations and administrative fairness. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. the final decision to set aside impugned orders and direct reconsideration. (Para 11)

ORDER:

Heard Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader,

appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri

G. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for Central

Government, appearing on behalf of respondent No.6.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer

as under:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one

in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, declaring the letter No.25015/02/2020

- AIS - II(Pension) dated 13/01/2023 issued by the 6th

respondent, which was communicated by the 5th

respondent by Memo No.768/Spl-A/A1/2020 dated 8.2.2023

including letter No.768/Spl-A-A1/2020-1 dated 14.11.2022

addressed by the 5th respondent to 6th respondent, as

arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16

and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 2 of

Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Public Employment (Recording

and Alteration of Date of Birth), Rules 1984, issued in

G.O.Ms No.165 Finance and Planning Department dated

21.4.1984 as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in

Case of High Court of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Sanyasi Rao

reported in 2012(1) SCC 674 and set aside the same and

issue consequential direction to direction to the respondents

to forthwith correct/alter, re-enter the date of birth of the

petitioner from 21.04.1967 to 21.04.1969 in the service

to continue the petitioner till attaining the age of

superannuation based on the date of birth of the petitioner

as 21.04.1969 instead of 21.04.1967 with all consequential

benefits, and pass...”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is that the petitioner

was appointed on 01.12.1997 as Assistant Audit Officer by

APSCC under Group-I Services under the jurisdiction of the 1st

respondent. When 1st respondent recorded the date of birth of

the petitioner as 21.04.1967, the petitioner made a

representation on 27.12.1997 i.e., within one month from the

date of his appointment as per Rule 2 of Andhra

Pradesh/Telangana Public Employment (Recording and Alteration

of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 seeking change of petitioner’s date

of birth as 21.04.1969 instead of 21.04.1967. However, the

authorities had not taken any action on the said representation.

Later on the petitioner got selected by then APPSC under Group

I Services and appointed as Deputy Collector on 25.01.2007 and

subsequently on 14.02.2007 the petitioner made a

representation to the then Chief Commissioner of Land

Administration, A.P., Hyderabad for change of petitioner’s Date

of Birth as 21.04.1969 instead of 21.04.1967. The petitioner

also made a representation to the 6th respondent including Chief

Secretary to Government, Telangana State with a request to

change his Date of Birth as 21.04.1969, however to the surprise

of the petitioner the 6th respondent issued letter vide letter

No.25015/02/2020-AIS-II (Pension) dated 13.01.2023 which

was communicated by the 5th respondent by Memo No.768/Spl-

A/A1/2020, dated 08.02.2023 including letter No.768/Spl-A-

A1/2020-1, dated 14.11.2922, rejecting the request of the

petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner presented the

present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:-

(A) The order impugned dated 13.01.2023 issued by

Secretary to Department of Personnel and Training

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

Government of India, is extracted hereunder:-

North Block, New Delhi,

Dated 13.01.2023

The

Chief Secretary,

Cen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 25022

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADSurepalli Nanda, JVanam Venkateswarlu – AppellantVersusGovernment of Telangana – RespondentWRIT PETITION No.20324 OF 2023

An authority cannot reject a government employee's request for alteration of date of birth on the ground of delay if the initial representation was submitted within the statutory limit prescribed by the governing service rules.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J
Vanam Venkateswarlu – Appellant
Versus
Government of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.20324 OF 2023