IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.33785 of 2023 THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 Between:

G.Narayana. …Petitioner AND The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director and others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri P.Venkateswar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in altering the date of birth of the petitioner from 25.07.1968 to 06.03.1966, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner joined as Driver in the respondent-Corporation in the year, 2000 and his services were regularized on 01.01.2009. Initially, the petitioner’s date of birth in the service record was recorded as 06.03.1966 and thereafter,, the Road Transport Corporation (RTC) issued Circular No.PD- 11/2011, dated 31.03.2011, for correct recording of the date of birth of employees in service records and in the PMS/payrolls of the employees in the respondent- Corporation. The respondents verified the service record of the petitioner and as per the verification, the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 25.07.1968. While it being so, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without any proceedings, the respondents asked the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.03.2026 on the ground that the date of the birth of the petitioner was recorded as

06.03.1966 in the service record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not having any qualification at the time of joining duty. The petitioner’s date of birth was mentioned in his driving license as 25.07.1968, even prior to his joining duty. In view of the same, after verification as per Circular No.PD-11/2011, dated 31.03.2011, the respondents had altered the date of birth of the petitioner to 25.07.1968, along with other employees. Without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the respondents had again altered the date of the birth of the petitioner as 06.03.1966. The said action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and in view of the same, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to allow the Writ Petition by declaring the date of birth of the petitioner as 25.07.1968 and directing the respondents to continue him in service till his superannuation by treating the said date as date of birth of the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, basing on the counter affidavit submits that, as per the Service Regulations of the Corporation, the age of an employee is to be assessed as under:

“As per regulation 19 (2) (b) of TSRTC Service Regulation, 1964,

“where the person concerned is unable to furnish satisfactory

evidence of his age, it should be assessed by a Medical Officer

of the Corporation and the age so assessed of the age as

declared by the person, whichever is more, shall be accepted as final and the employee shall be assumed to have completed that age on the date of attestation by the Medical Officer”.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 further submits that, in accordance with the above provisions, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Officer for assessment of age at the time of recruitment and since the petitioner had not submitted any educational certificates to establish proof of age or date of birth before the appointing authority, the Medical Officer assessed the petitioner’s age as 34 years as on 06.03.2000 vide Medical Certificate No.AO/0288. Based on this certification, the petitioner’s date of birth was det