HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 3124 OF 2017

O R D E R:

Petitioners challenge the order dated

25-11-2012 passed by the 2^nd respondent – Managing Director, A.P. Vikalangula Cooperative Corporation, by which, they were retired from service with effect from 31-08-2012, mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and that the procedure for age determination was not followed. Consequently, a direction is sought to respondents to continue them in service till they attain the age of superannuation as per the date of birth entered in the service register at the time of appointment and pay all the benefits, back wages, etcetera.

2. Petitioners claim to have joined the 2nd respondent Corporation in 1988 and 1990 with their dates of birth recorded in their respective service registers. However, they were directed to attend an examination at the Forensic Medicine Department, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on 28-08-2012, purportedly for age determination. Accordingly, unaware of the fact that date of birth once entered and continued in service for more than two decades could not be altered, they complied with and attended the session where only physical measurements were taken and radiological examination, a key test for age determination was not conducted. However, to their shock, the

2nd respondent issued the impugned retirement order.

It is contended by petitioners that they were not given any opportunity to question certificates issued by the Forensic Department, hence, the certificates allegedly used as the basis for retiring them from service cannot be relied upon. No notice indicating the intended date of retirement was issued and the impugned order was passed without such prior notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

According to petitioners, at the time of retirement order, the 1^st petitioner was only 51-year-old with seven years of service remaining and Petitioners 2 to 7 had even more remaining service, exceeding 10 years in several cases. The 2nd respondent misusing the age verification process, attempted to illegally terminate their services. Had the results been shared, petitioners would have raised objections, especially because the Radiological Examination was not performed. The 2^nd respondent, by withholding this opportunity, purposefully denied them the chance to challenge the certificate and retirement. The impugned order clearly demonstrates that the 2^nd respondent had earlier attempted to terminate them under the guise of a Humanitarian Package. When that method failed, a new method — the manipulation of age records — was devised to terminate their services. Petitioners further state that their services had been regularized on the representation given to the then Hon’ble Chief Minister Dr. Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao on 31-01-1987. In response, assurances were given by the then Government that their jobs would be made permanent and would not be interrupted under any circumstances.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners Sri Ram Naresh Kumar submits that all his clients are suffering from blindness, and one among them is completely physically-handicapped and their employment is their only means of livelihood. He argues that petitioners were not issued prior notice before serving the order of retirement which is violation of basic principle of natural justice. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent lacks authority to alter the dates of birth recorded in the service registers more than two decades ago.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General representing the 2^nd respondent, based on the counter- affidavit, justifies the impugned action stating that petitioners were beneficiaries of irregular appointments during the tenure of one Sri S. Venugopala Rao, the then Managing Director of APVCC between 1987 and 1991. It is submitted that numerous appointments were made without adherence to eligibility criteria, educational qualifications, or budgetary