WP/24100/2023 of M V V JAGANMOHAN RAO Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 11 March 2026

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed declaring the proceedings dated 06.02.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have not considered the request made by the petitioner and they simply rejected the case of the petitioner based on G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 21.04.1984. According to the said G.O., every Government employee shall, within one month from the date on which he joins duty, makes a declaration as to his date of birth. The date of birth determined under sub-rule

(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 shall be entered in the service record of the employee concerned duly attested by the Head of the Office and the date of birth as determined and entered in the service record shall not be altered except in the case of bona fide clerical error under the orders of Government. However, in the instant case, the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 01.07.1965 based on the 10th class certificate. Subsequently, when the petitioner got the correct date of birth certificate issued by the competent authority as per rules, it was shown that the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.07.1966. After obtaining the said certificate, the petitioner has made an application. Along with the application, he has also given the reasons for non-submission of the correct date of birth certificate within the stipulated time. However, the same was not considered and based on G.O.Ms.No.165, the petitioner’s case was rejected by the impugned proceedings dated 06.02.2023.

4. The learned counsel further brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.Thimmaiah v. The State of A.P., Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department1, wherein it has considered the issue and passed the following the order: “11. It is also apparent on the face of the record that the certificate of birth pertaining to the petitioner has been issued by the competent authority under the provisions of 1 2010 SCC OnLine AP 257

section 12/17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 read with Rule 8 of the A.P. Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. If that being the case, the deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness and such entries are admissible in evidence in terms of section 35 of the Evidence Act, as held by the Apex Court.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court (citation-2 supra) to the effect that the deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness and such entries made in the statutory registers are admissible in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act and it would prevail over an entry made in the school register, and in view of the pendency of the representation before the 3rd respondent- Collector, we feel it just and proper to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law.”

5. As held by the Division Bench, the petitioner’s case may be considered as per the certificate obtained from the competent authority and produced before the employer.

6. Reply to the said contentions, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, based on the counter filed by the respondents, submitted that as per

G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 21.04.1984, the maximum time period for making an application for correction of date of birth is only one year. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has made the application just before his retirement. The petitioner entered into service in 1995 and he made the application for correction of his date of birth just before his retirement. Hence, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered.

7. Further, the learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Harnam Singh2, wherein it was held that as per Fundamental Rule 56, a request for correction of date of birth can be entertained only if it is made within five years of entry into service and no correction can be permitted thereafter.

8. Considering the rival submissions and without going into the merits of the case, as the petitioner has obtained the certificate from the competent authority and the same is not in dispute, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment and pass 2 (1993) 2 SCC 162

appropriate orders in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 12.03.2026 Ivd

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.24100 of 2023

Dated: 12.03.2026

Ivd