Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 38330

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J
Vasam venkateswar Reddy I.A.S. – Appellant
Versus
Director of State Audit – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.20324 OF 2023

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

Administrative authorities must objectively determine claims for the alteration of a date of birth in accordance with statutory rules and timely declarations, and failing to account for evidence of a timely-submitted representation renders a rejection order arbitrary and subject to judicial review.

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 from 21.04.1967 to 21.04.1969 - Representation for correction made within one month of joining duty as mandated by Rule 2 - Authorities failed to process the request timely - Subsequent rejection of the request by the State and Central Government authorities on the ground of non-invocation of rules was contrary to record. (Paras 3, 5, 8, 10)

(B) Administrative Law - Duty to act fairly - Rejection of representation for alteration of date of birth without application of mind - Order passed in a routine manner without examining material on record regarding the timely submission of the initial representation - Violation of principles of natural justice - High Court directed reconsideration of the representation with an opportunity for personal hearing. (Paras 8, 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Audit Officer in 1997, filed a representation for the correction of his date of birth within a month of his appointment as per the 1984 Rules. Decades later, after his promotion to the Indian Administrative Service, his requests for the same were rejected by state and central authorities, claiming the request was time-barred and the recorded birth date had attained finality.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the rejection was contrary to record, as the petitioner had indeed submitted his request within the statutory timeframe in 1997. The authorities' failure to act on the initial representation and the subsequent rejection in 2023 was deemed arbitrary and illegal.

Issues: Whether the denial of the petitioner's request for alteration of his date of birth was arbitrary and contrary to the governing statutory rules.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative authority is obligated to objectively determine a request for the alteration of date of birth in accordance with statutory provisions, specifically the 1984 Rules, and failure to acknowledge a timely-filed declaration constitutes a failure to exercise power correctly, warranting judicial intervention.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges birth date correction rejection based on timely 1997 application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. evidence and arguments regarding administrative handling of date change representations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. courts must ensure administrative actions follow statutory rules and record evidence fairly. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. writ petition allowed with instructions for reconsidered decision. (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,

Central Administration (S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 38330

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADSurepalli Nanda, JVasam venkateswar Reddy I.A.S. – AppellantVersusDirector of State Audit – RespondentWRIT PETITION No.20324 OF 2023

Administrative authorities must objectively determine claims for the alteration of a date of birth in accordance with statutory rules and timely declarations, and failing to account for evidence of a timely-submitted representation renders a rejection order arbitrary and subject to judicial review.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J
Vasam venkateswar Reddy I.A.S. – Appellant
Versus
Director of State Audit – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.20324 OF 2023