HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 23601 OF 2016

O R D E R:

Petitioner claimed to have joined the service of respondent – State-owned Corporation as driver on 18.03.1986 and reached up to the post of ADC vide proceedings dated 22.11.2014. It is his complaint, the 2^nd respondent vide order dated 01.09.2015 informed that he was to retire from service with effect from 29.02.2016 on the ground that his date of birth was 27.02.1958. According to petitioner, his actual date of birth was 03.05.1963 and it was also recorded in Transfer Certificate, driving licence, etcetera. Hence, he is stated to have requested the 2nd respondent on 10.03.2012 to correct his date of birth as recorded in his service register from 03.05.1960 to 03.05.1963. Thereafter, he made a representation, which was rejected vide order dated 29.10.2104 by the 2^nd respondent. Thereafter, pursuant to the Application under Right to Information Act, dated 09.03.2016, the 2^nd respondent furnished the following documents through registered letter dated 21.03.2016:

1. Xerox Copy of T.C. No. 262891 submitted at the time of joining.

2. Duplicate T.C. submitted for 2nd time.

3. Xerox Copy of Driving License No.10966/PVN6/1982.

4. Xerox Copy of X Class certificate No. 1693602.

5. Letter of me made for the correction of date of birth.

6. Xerox Copy of Promotion order of ADC.

7 & 8. Xerox Copy of Doctor Certificate certifying date of birth.

9. X Class Marks Certificate is not available in the personal file.

It is the complaint of petitioner that his date of birth was corrected in service register from 03.05.1960 to 27.02.1958 without any notice and opportunity by the Depot Manager, who is not competent to correct as per Regulation 19 of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations 1966. Hence, the very correction is without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice.

It is the further case of petitioner that the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 07.08.2014 calling upon him to submit the record in support of date of birth as 03.05.1963. Accordingly, he is stated to have submitted explanation on 09.10.2014, but however, the 2^nd respondent passed the order dated 29.10.2014 stating that he had not produced any document in proof of date of birth and that the declared date of birth is 03.05.1960, which is not correct as all the original certificates are very much available in record. Further the respondents states that since he was examined by the Medical Officer on 02.07.1986, after his selection for the post of driver, his age was certified as 28 and that date of birth should be 27.02.1958. The said action is nothing but arbitrary as the medical certificate and medical examination was done only in respect of finding out as to whether his physical fitness is suitable to the post of driver or not, but not for assessment of age. Hence, considering the same for correcting my date of birth after long laps of time is nothing but arbitrary as well as the contrary to the material available on record.

2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for petitioner. He submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No. 16974 of 2009 held that medical certificate is only a fitness certificate but not age determination certificate and Writ Appeal No. 1053 of 2011 filed against the said order was dismissed.

3. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri Panakanty Satish Kumar submits that petitioner declared his date of birth as 03.05.1960 as per his personal records, but he had not produced any school certificate to this effect at the time of appointment. Hence, in view of as per M.C.No. 39438, dated 27.02.1986 issued by the Superintendent, APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, his age was certified to be 28 as on 27.02.1986, thus his date of birth as per medical certificate should be 27.02.1958.

4. Perused the record. Petitioner disputes correction of his age from 03.05.1960 to 27.02.1958 in his Service Records as illegal and arbitrary. It