WA/2597/2005 of Mohd.Hameed Khan , Hameed Md.Hussain Khan, Vs APSRTC Metpalle Depot, represented by its Depot Manager, on 29 December 2005

1. APSRTC Metpalle Depot, represented by its Depot Manager, Metpalle,Karimnagar District.Karimnagar District.

And two others.

...RESPONDENTS

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO

And

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

WRIT APPEAL NO.2597 of 2005

JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao)

Heard both the sides.

At their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal.

The appellant/writ petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 23.12.2005 inW.P.M.P.No.30091 of 2005 in W.P.No.23442 of 2005 filed seeking suspension ofthe operation of the impugned notification No.P1/756(8)/05 MTPL dated 01.07.2005,which was rejected, whereby the petitioner seeks to retire on the basis of the entrymade in the Service Records.

The case of the appellant is that his actual date of birth is 10.01.1959 and not14.12.1947. Therefore, the impugned proceedings were issued. The learned SingleJudge, after taking into consideration the submissions made and the contents in thecounter affidavit, rejected the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner did not place any proof of his date of birth issued by any Educational Institution or anyextract from the Registrar of Births. The learned Single Judge further observed thatin case the petitioner ultimately succeeds, he can be granted necessary relief.

Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the materialavailable on record, it is seen that even now, no material is forthcoming on behalf ofthe appellant except the contra entries in the Service Record. Admittedly, thepetitioner was examined medically as long back as in the year 1987 and the MedicalCertificate dated 14.12.1987 shows that his age was 40 years as on that date andthe appellant kept silent for a long time without taking any steps for correction of thesame or otherwise. In view of the same and in view of the discretion as exercised bythe learned Single Judge, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugnedorder.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Office is directed to expedite the hearing of the Writ Petition.

_________________(B.PRAKASH RAO, J)

___________________

29[th] December 2005

RRB

(DR G.YETHIRAJULU, J)