Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 64878

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J
V. 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

Administrative authorities are legally obligated to objectively process requests for correction of date of birth filed within the statutory limitation period; arbitrary rejection of such requests without due consideration of records or compliance with principles of natural justice violates the law.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 - Rule 2 - Service Law - Correction of Date of Birth - Petitioner joined service on 01.12.1997 and filed representation for correction of DOB within one month - Authorities failed to process the same for decades - Impugned orders rejecting the claim based on 'finality' and absence of 'rule invocation' held to be contrary to record - Principle reiterated that administrative authorities must objectively determine age in accordance with statutory provisions after giving opportunity to the employee. (Paras 7-11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an IAS officer, sought correction of his date of birth in the service register from 21.04.1967 to 21.04.1969. He had submitted a representation within one month of his initial appointment in 1997, but no action was taken. Decades later, his request was rejected on the grounds that the entry in the service register had attained finality and that he had failed to invoke the relevant rules timely.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the record clearly showed the petitioner had invoked the rules within the mandatory time limit. The rejection orders were passed without applying the mind and were contrary to the official records.

Issues: Whether the request for alteration of date of birth was timely and whether the authorities were justified in rejecting the representation without examination of the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative authorities are required to objectively determine service records in conformity with the law and principles of natural justice; failing to examine a timely filed representation while terming it 'stale' is arbitrary and contrary to law.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; authorities directed to reconsider the representation within four weeks.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges birth date records citing arbitrary administrative processing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. examination of impugned rejection orders and arguments regarding statutory limitation and service rules. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. mandatory objective determination of service age and procedural fairness requirements. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 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 (Spl-A) Department,

Government of Telangana,

Telangana Secretariat,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 64878

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

Administrative authorities are legally obligated to objectively process requests for correction of date of birth filed within the statutory limitation period; arbitrary rejection of such requests without due consideration of records or compliance with principles of natural justice violates the law.

Cases Referred (1)

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