M. Chalapati Rao Vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Registrar General and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - adinarayana rao, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order of the 1st respondent is irrational and is vitiated by failure to consider the relevant facts and law governing the issue.orderghulam mohammed, j.1. aggrieved by the orders of the 1st respondent in not correcting the records of the 1st respondent, insofar as the date of birth of the petitioner is concerned, in conformity with the service register of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.2. the petitioner is now in the rank of additional district and sessions judge. pursuant to the notification issued by the andhra pradesh public service commission for direct recruitment to the posts of district munsif, (junior civil judge), the petitioner was selected and appointed as district munsif vide g.o.ms. no. 68 dated 23-2-1987 and that the petitioner was posted as ii additional district munsif, machilipatnam and assumed charge as such on 1-4-1987. according to the petitioner, at the time of submission of applications, in the year 1986, he mentioned his date of birth as 20-6-1950 in the application form submitted to the a.p. public service commission, since at that time the university certificates mentioned the said date as his date of birth. the petitioner's case is that while he was practising as an advocate, he came to know that the date of birth entered in the university record was incorrect and in fact he was born on 22-10-1953, at st. joseph's hospital, guntur and therefore, after verifying the necessary records, he filed suit o.s. no. 345 of 1986 on the file of the district munsif, sattenapalli for declaration of his date of birth as 22-10-1953 i.e. prior to his joining the duty. in the said suit, the petitioner impleaded both the andhra university, visakhapatnam, from where he passed matriculation, p.u.c. and b.sc. examinations and the nagarjuna university from where he obtained his law degree as defendants 1 and 2. after contest, the suit was decreed declaring his date of birth as 22-10-1953. accordingly, andhra university, by its proceedings dated 24-1-1987 had corrected his date of birth and issued the revised certificate, showing the date of birth as 22-10-1953.3. it is further averred by the petitioner that on selection and appointment as per g.o.ms. no. 68 dated 23-2-1987, the high court posted the petitioner as ii additional munsif magistrate, machilipatnam. the district judge, machilipatnam to whom the petitioner reported for duty on 1-4-1987, and who is the authority competent to maintain the service register, sought for his declaration as to his date of birth and based upon the records produced by the petitioner including the amended certificates of the university had recorded the date of birth as 22-10-1953. the petitioner states that he also submitted a representation dated 22-3-1987 before joining the service bringing the aforesaid facts to the office of the high court to treat the date of birth as 22-10-1953 in the records of the high court. the date of birth was recorded as 22-10-1953 in the service register as per the revised date of birth certificate issued by the university authorities, by the district judge, machilipatnam. thus in accordance with the rules governing the issue, the date of birth as entered in the service records had become final and the same is binding on the petitioner and his employer.4. subsequently in the seniority list communicated by the high court, the petitioner states that his date of birth was shown as 20-6-1950. since the 1st respondent had not taken any steps to correct the records in accordance with the service register and a representation was also made by the petitioner on 23-3-1987 before joining the duty, the petitioner made another application to the high court dated 14-12-1992 to rectify the anomaly and correct his date of birth in the high court records, to bring it on par with the entry made in the service register by the district judge which is conclusive and binding in accordance with the rules. all the applications made by the in-service candidates were placed before the administrative committee of the court on administrative side. his application was also treated as an application to correct the date of birth and was bunched with the other applications and was rejected by the high court vide proceedings dated 13-1-1997 on the ground that the date of birth was entered in the service record basing on the representation of the officer and the matter produced did not inspire confidence.5. the petitioner states that similar orders were passed in many cases, one of the aggrieved employee filed w.p. no. 3683 of 1998 before this court and the division bench of this court allowed the said writ petition by order dated 23-7-1998 on the ground that the order was passed without application of mind to the individual facts and it was done by clubbing all the applications. the petitioner states that the ratio decidendi in that case is equally applicable to his case and it needs to be considered afresh. the petitioner further states that he was under bona fide impression that in accordance with the said judgment his application would be considered again, and hence he could not take any further steps. since no orders were passed, he again filed a representation dated 5-12-2005 bringing the aforesaid facts to the notice of the 1st respondent and sought for consideration of his case specifically stating that it is not a case of alteration of date of birth, but it is an application to bring the high court records on par with the service register which is binding on the employee and employer. the said representation was again rejected by proceedings dated 8-6-2006 on the ground that the earlier representation was rejected and that the date of birth was recorded on the basis of the entry contained in the school certificate and there is no other valid ground to rely upon the other records.6. the petitioner states his application is not for correction of date of birth but to correct the records of the high court to bring it in conformity with the service register. the petitioner states that the entire record was lost during shifting of his house and the said record contains the original records of his educational certificates etc., and that the said bundle could be traced recently and thereafter he filed the present writ petition. thus, there occurred delay of over an year in approaching this court, which according to the petitioner is neither wilful nor wanton.7. a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner at the time of applying for the post declared his date of birth as 20-6-1950 and he was appointed as district munsif as per proceedings dated 17-3-1987 and posted as ii additional judicial first class magistrate, machilipatnam where he joined on the forenoon of 1-4-1987. he was transferred as district munsif, guntur for undergoing training as per the orders of this court dated 9-6-1987. he was relieved on the afternoon of 7-7-1987 in machilipatnam and joined in guntur for training which he underwent till 13-10-1987 and joined in machilipatnam on 14-10-1987. high court called for service register of the petitioner after the above writ petition was admitted by this court. on verification of the service register it was found that it is the then district judge, guntur, who had recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 22-10-1953 in the service register but not the then district judge, machilipatnam as stated by the petitioner.8. it is further stated that no representation as averred by the petitioner has been filed by the petitioner. it is however, stated that the representation dated 22-3-1987 a copy of which is enclosed to the representation dated 14-12-1992, on a perusal would show that the same was submitted by the petitioner when he was a practising advocate at sattenapalli and in the said letter, he styled himself as district munsif designate. at that point of time any alteration of date of birth and a request for alteration does not arise for consideration. as per the andhra pradesh employment (recording and alteration of date of birth) rules, 1984, every government employee shall, within one month from the date on which he joins duty, must make a declaration as to his date of birth. when such a declaration if any, given by the petitioner was called for from the district judges, krishna at machilipatnam and guntur, the registry received response from the office of the district judge, machilipatnam stating that no information is available in the office of the district judge, machilipatnam and in the court of ii additional judicial first class magistrate, machilipatnam. the petitioner's representation in this regard was belatedly submitted on 14-12-1992 whereas the petitioner joined the service on 1-4-1987 and that representation if any submitted prior to the date of joining into service cannot be countenanced. relying on the decision of the full bench of this court in g. krishna mohan rao v. regisrar, a.p. administrative tribunal, hyderabad : 2004 (3) alt 647 : 2004 (3) ald 448 (fb), it is stated by the respondent that since this writ petition has been filed seeking correction of the date of birth basing on the decree passed by the lower court for correction of date of birth, the same cannot be entertained in view of the bar contained in rule 2-a of the rules.9. heard the learned counsel on either side.10. sri b. adinarayana rao, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order of the 1st respondent is irrational and is vitiated by failure to consider the relevant facts and law governing the issue. it is the contention of the learned counsel that there cannot be two different dates of birth to a government employee and the attempt of the petitioner in seeking to correct the records of the high court is to bring the same in conformity with the date of birth as registered in the service register, which is binding as having been recorded in accordance with the rules governing the field. learned counsel further contended that date of birth of the petitioner was already recorded in the service records of the petitioner and he is not seeking its alteration and on the other hand the 1st respondent had different date of birth in its records than the binding entry in the service register and the application is only to bring it in conformity with it and that when once the date of birth as recorded in the service register is binding both on the employer and employee the same cannot be disputed by virtue of rule 2(4) of the rules. it is also the contention of the petitioner that the impugned orders were passed without reference to the administrative committee and therefore sought for allowing of the writ petition. in support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in government of a.p. v. m. hayagreev sarma : 1990 (2) scc 682, burn standard co. ltd v. dinabandhu majumdar : air 1995 sc 1499, b. siva sanker rao v. high court of a.p. : 1999 (2) alt 38 : 1999 alt (rev.) 354 : 1999 (2) ald 569 (d.b.).11. smt. m. bhaskara laxtni, leaned standing counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the petitioner did not declare his correct date of birth within one month from the date on which he joined duty. relying on the decision reported in g. krishna mohan rao's case (supra) it is contended that as per rule 2-a of the rules, the decree of a civil court in regard to alteration of the date of birth in the school or university records or its effects of implementation shall not be taken into consideration in derogation to the above rules. she further contended that since the petitioner himself furnished the date of birth in his application form, the same will only be binding under the rules in force and subsequent entry in the service register contrary to the entry in his own application and the original records maintained by the high court will not advance the case of the petitioner. learned counsel further submitted that for the first time in the year 1992 the petitioner made application seeking alteration of date of birth and the same is impermissible at this stage as it has a chain reaction and entries recorded in the service records maintained by the high court will be binding on the employee and therefore no interference is warranted in this writ petition as the same is hit by laches and doctrine of estoppel. in support of her contentions, learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in union of india v. c. rama swamy : air 1997 sc 2055 : 1997 (3) alt 30 (d.n.), unreported judgments of this court in w.p. no. 20461 of 2004 dated 8-11-2000, w.p no. 14084 of 2006 dated 24-10-2006, and also interim order of the supreme court in slp civil 22595 of 2004 dated 25-10-2004, wherein the supreme court ordered not to effect correction of date of birth of the respondent officer therein, pursuant to the decision in sanyasi rao v. high court of a.p. : 2002 (3) alt 92 (d.b.).12. rule 2 of the andhra pradesh public employment (recording and alteration of date of birth) rules, 1984 reads as under:2. recording of date of birth:(1) every government employee shall, within one month from the date on which he joins duty, makes a declaration as to his date of birth.(2) on receipt of the declaration made under sub-rule (1), the head of office or any other officer who maintains the service records in respect of such government employee shall, after making such enquiry as may be deemed fit, with regard to the declaration and after taking into consideration such evidence, if any, as may be adduced in respect of the said declaration, make an order within four months from the date on which the government employees joins service, determining the date of birth.provided that in cases where the date of birth as determined under this sub-rule is different from the one declared by the government employees concerned under sub-rule (1), he shall be given an opportunity of making a representation, before a final order is made.(3) where a government employee fails to make a declaration within the time specified in sub-rule (1), the head of office or the officer who maintains the service records shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available and after giving an opportunity of making a representation to the government employee concerned, determine the date of birth of the employee within six months from the date on which the government employee joins service.13. rule 2(4) of the rules mandates that the date of birth determined under this rule shall be entered in the service records of the employee concerned duly attested by the head of office or the officer who maintains the service records and the date of birth so entered shall be so final and binding and the government employee shall be estopped from disputing the correctness of such date of birth. as per rule 2(5), the date of birth as determined on the basis of the school records or any proof produced at the time of entering into service and entered in the service record shall be final and no subsequent variation of the date of birth in the school records for any reason, shall be relevant for the purpose of service and on that basis the date of birth entered in the service records shall not be altered except in the case of bona fide clerical error, under the orders of the government.14. in hayagreeva sarma's case (supra), the question that fell for consideration before the apex court was as to whether alteration of date of birth was permissible after enforcement of the a.p. public employment (recording and alteration of date of birth) rules, 1984. since prayer for alteration in the date of birth so recorded finally, was rejected prior to coming into force of these rules, therefore, it was held by the apex court that subsequent claim for alteration after commencement of the rules are not permissible. in dinabandhu majumdar's case (supra), it was held by the apex court that ordinarily the high courts should not in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ application/petition filed by an employee of the government or its instrumentality, towards the fag end of his service, seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his' service and leave record' or service register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement.15. in g. krishna mohan rao's case, (supra) while overruling the decision of the division bench of this court in sanyasi rao's case (supra), it was held by the full bench of this court that as per rule 2-a of the rules, the decree obtained by an employee for altering his date of birth as entered in the service register is not binding on the employer though he is a party to the suit. it was also held that a decree after the employee entered the service, directing the defendants therein to alter the date of birth entered in service records, cannot be sustained in view of the bar under rule 2-a.16. in c. rama swamy's case (supra) it was held by the apex court that an employee is entitled to seek change of his date of birth only in case of bona fide mistake in recording the date of birth at the time of employment.17. in b. siva sanker rao's case (supra) representation was made by the judicial officer for correction of the date of birth entered in service register and rejected order was passed basing on a resolution passed by the administrative committee even prior to the date of entry of the judicial officer's date of birth, passed in connection with the representation of other judicial officials, without considering the case on merits. in those circumstances, it was directed by the division bench of this court to consider his case on its own merits. it is reported that the high court on administrative side rejected his claim and hence he filed w.p. no. 20641 of 2004. it is noteworthy that the division bench of this court in unreported judgment in w.p. no. 20641 of 2004 dated 8-11-2006, following its earlier judgment in w.p. no. 14084 of 2006 dated 24-10-2006, has held that once the date of birth is recorded on the basis of the school records or an y proof produced at the time of entering into service, shall be final and no variation of date of birth in the school records for any reason shall be relevant for the purpose of service.18. the petitioner wants that his date of birth to be changed to 22-10-1953, as per the service register and pursuant to the decree of the civil court in o.s. no. 345 of 1986 dated 3-11-1986. the petitioner applied for the post of district munsif by declaring his date of birth as 20-6-1950. obviously, before joining the duty i.e. on 1-4-1987, the petitioner got the decree of the civil court on 3-11-1986 and that the petitioner was appointed on 1-4-1987. according to the petitioner at the time of joining the service, the district judge, machilipatnam opened his service register and based on the records produced by him, recorded his date of birth as 22-10-1953. the contention of the petitioner is that at the time of submission of application form for the post of district munsif in the year 1986 the date of birth was mentioned as 20-6-1950, since at that time the university certificates mentioned the said date as his date of birth. it is only pursuant to the decree of the civil court obtained on 3-11-1986, i.e. before joining the duty he made an application for correction of his date of birth. later on 14-12-1992 the petitioner made application seeking to rectify the date of birth in the high court records to bring it on par with the entry made in the service register. it is to be noticed that the petitioner was initially posted at machilipatnam and later he was sent for training to guntur. in that view of the matter he should have been given a declaration as required under rules to the district judge, machilipatnam within 30 days, whereas in the present case the petitioner gave declaration to the district judge, guntur after he was sent to training that too after 30 days.19. we are afraid that this is not the import of the andhra pradesh public employment (recording & alteration of date of birth) rules, 1984, as the petitioner while offering himself as a candidate for the post of district munsif (direct recruitment) declared his date of birth as 20-6-1950 in his application form submitted to the public service commission. the petitioner claims that he made representation on 22-3-1987, to the high court but no acknowledgement with regard to such representation has been made available to us.20. it is true that once date of birth has been entered in the service records on the basis of the school records, it can never be changed in terms of sub-rule (5) of rule 2 of the rules and it can be changed for any clerical mistakes only. as per the rule 2(1) of the rules, every government employee shall within one month from the date on which he joins duty must make a declaration as to his date of birth. however, no such declaration information is made available to us by the petitioner. as per the service records maintained by the high court the entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned as 20-6-1950. as rightly contended by the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent, in the records of the high court the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 20-6-1950, whereas in the service record it was mentioned otherwise. for all purposes, the registers maintained by the high court are to be taken into consideration and as stated above, the petitioner's representation in this regard was belatedly submitted on 14-12-1992, though the petitioner joined the service on 1-4-1987, and thus the plea of the petitioner is hit by laches. the full bench of this court in g. krishna mohan rao's case (supra), has held that even if an employee is in possession of a decree declaring his date of birth to be different than what is recorded in his service register, that decree cannot be binding on employer even if the employer is a party to the suit in view of the bar created under rule 2-a of the rules. since the petitioner himself gave a declaration as to his date of birth in the application form he is estopped from seeking alteration of the same at a subsequent point of time and the writ petition is thus hit by unexplained laches.21. even if the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 20-6-1950, the petitioner passed matriculation (s.s.c.) in the year 1965-66, then he was aged 15 years. if the date of the birth as averred by the petitioner is taken into consideration i.e. as 22-10-1953, the petitioner would be aged about 12-13 years only. thus, the contention of the petitioner that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the school records and that he obtained a civil decree before joining the duty does not inspire any confidence. further, the petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2007 and if any relief sought for by the petitioner is considered, the consequences would flow down the line affecting other public servant, which will have a chain reaction.22. for the foregoing discussion, we do not see any ground to entertain the writ petition. the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Ghulam Mohammed, J.

1. Aggrieved by the orders of the 1st respondent in not correcting the records of the 1st respondent, insofar as the date of birth of the petitioner is concerned, in conformity with the service register of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner is now in the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge. Pursuant to the notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for direct recruitment to the posts of District Munsif, (Junior Civil Judge), the petitioner was selected and appointed as District Munsif vide G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 23-2-1987 and that the petitioner was posted as II Additional District Munsif, Machilipatnam and assumed charge as such on 1-4-1987. According to the petitioner, at the time of submission of applications, in the year 1986, he mentioned his date of birth as 20-6-1950 in the application form submitted to the A.P. Public Service Commission, since at that time the University certificates mentioned the said date as his date of birth. The petitioner's case is that while he was practising as an Advocate, he came to know that the date of birth entered in the University record was incorrect and in fact he was born on 22-10-1953, at St. Joseph's Hospital, Guntur and therefore, after verifying the necessary records, he filed suit O.S. No. 345 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Sattenapalli for declaration of his date of birth as 22-10-1953 i.e. prior to his joining the duty. In the said suit, the petitioner impleaded both the Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, from where he passed Matriculation, P.U.C. and B.Sc. examinations and the Nagarjuna University from where he obtained his Law Degree as defendants 1 and 2. After contest, the suit was decreed declaring his date of birth as 22-10-1953. Accordingly, Andhra University, by its proceedings dated 24-1-1987 had corrected his date of birth and issued the revised certificate, showing the date of birth as 22-10-1953.

3. It is further averred by the petitioner that on selection and appointment as per G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 23-2-1987, the High Court posted the petitioner as II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Machilipatnam. The District Judge, Machilipatnam to whom the petitioner reported for duty on 1-4-1987, and who is the authority competent to maintain the Service Register, sought for his declaration as to his date of birth and based upon the records produced by the petitioner including the amended certificates of the University had recorded the date of birth as 22-10-1953. The petitioner states that he also submitted a representation dated 22-3-1987 before joining the service bringing the aforesaid facts to the office of the High Court to treat the date of birth as 22-10-1953 in the records of the High Court. The date of birth was recorded as 22-10-1953 in the service register as per the revised date of birth certificate issued by the University authorities, by the District Judge, Machilipatnam. Thus in accordance with the rules governing the issue, the date of birth as entered in the service records had become final and the same is binding on the petitioner and his employer.

4. Subsequently in the seniority list communicated by the High Court, the petitioner states that his date of birth was shown as 20-6-1950. Since the 1st respondent had not taken any steps to correct the records in accordance with the service register and a representation was also made by the petitioner on 23-3-1987 before joining the duty, the petitioner made another application to the High Court dated 14-12-1992 to rectify the anomaly and correct his date of birth in the High Court records, to bring it on par with the entry made in the service register by the District Judge which is conclusive and binding in accordance with the rules. All the applications made by the in-service candidates were placed before the administrative committee of the Court on administrative side. His application was also treated as an application to correct the date of birth and was bunched with the other applications and was rejected by the High Court vide proceedings dated 13-1-1997 on the ground that the date of birth was entered in the service record basing on the representation of the officer and the matter produced did not inspire confidence.

5. The petitioner states that similar orders were passed in many cases, one of the aggrieved employee filed W.P. No. 3683 of 1998 before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court allowed the said writ petition by order dated 23-7-1998 on the ground that the order was passed without application of mind to the individual facts and it was done by clubbing all the applications. The petitioner states that the ratio decidendi in that case is equally applicable to his case and it needs to be considered afresh. The petitioner further states that he was under bona fide impression that in accordance with the said judgment his application would be considered again, and hence he could not take any further steps. Since no orders were passed, he again filed a representation dated 5-12-2005 bringing the aforesaid facts to the notice of the 1st respondent and sought for consideration of his case specifically stating that it is not a case of alteration of date of birth, but it is an application to bring the High Court records on par with the service register which is binding on the employee and employer. The said representation was again rejected by proceedings dated 8-6-2006 on the ground that the earlier representation was rejected and that the date of birth was recorded on the basis of the entry contained in the school certificate and there is no other valid ground to rely upon the other records.

6. The petitioner states his application is not for correction of date of birth but to correct the records of the High Court to bring it in conformity with the service register. The petitioner states that the entire record was lost during shifting of his house and the said record contains the original records of his educational certificates etc., and that the said bundle could be traced recently and thereafter he filed the present writ petition. Thus, there occurred delay of over an year in approaching this Court, which according to the petitioner is neither wilful nor wanton.

7. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner at the time of applying for the post declared his date of birth as 20-6-1950 and he was appointed as District Munsif as per proceedings dated 17-3-1987 and posted as II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam where he joined on the forenoon of 1-4-1987. He was transferred as District Munsif, Guntur for undergoing training as per the orders of this Court dated 9-6-1987. He was relieved on the afternoon of 7-7-1987 in Machilipatnam and joined in Guntur for training which he underwent till 13-10-1987 and joined in Machilipatnam on 14-10-1987. High Court called for service Register of the petitioner after the above Writ Petition was admitted by this Court. On verification of the Service Register it was found that it is the then District Judge, Guntur, who had recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 22-10-1953 in the Service Register but not the then District Judge, Machilipatnam as stated by the petitioner.

8. It is further stated that no representation as averred by the petitioner has been filed by the petitioner. It is however, stated that the representation dated 22-3-1987 a copy of which is enclosed to the representation dated 14-12-1992, on a perusal would show that the same was submitted by the petitioner when he was a practising advocate at Sattenapalli and in the said letter, he styled himself as District Munsif Designate. At that point of time any alteration of date of birth and a request for alteration does not arise for consideration. As per the Andhra Pradesh Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984, every Government employee shall, within one month from the date on which he joins duty, must make a declaration as to his date of birth. When such a declaration if any, given by the petitioner was called for from the District Judges, Krishna at Machilipatnam and Guntur, the Registry received response from the office of the District Judge, Machilipatnam stating that no information is available in the office of the District Judge, Machilipatnam and in the court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam. The petitioner's representation in this regard was belatedly submitted on 14-12-1992 whereas the petitioner joined the service on 1-4-1987 and that representation if any submitted prior to the date of joining into service cannot be countenanced. Relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in G. Krishna Mohan Rao v. Regisrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad : 2004 (3) ALT 647 : 2004 (3) ALD 448 (FB), it is stated by the respondent that since this writ petition has been filed seeking correction of the date of birth basing on the decree passed by the lower court for correction of date of birth, the same cannot be entertained in view of the bar contained in Rule 2-A of the Rules.

9. Heard the learned Counsel on either side.

10. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order of the 1st respondent is irrational and is vitiated by failure to consider the relevant facts and law governing the issue. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that there cannot be two different dates of birth to a Government employee and the attempt of the petitioner in seeking to correct the records of the High Court is to bring the same in conformity with the date of birth as registered in the service register, which is binding as having been recorded in accordance with the rules governing the field. Learned Counsel further contended that date of birth of the petitioner was already recorded in the service records of the petitioner and he is not seeking its alteration and on the other hand the 1st respondent had different date of birth in its records than the binding entry in the service register and the application is only to bring it in conformity with it and that when once the date of birth as recorded in the service register is binding both on the employer and employee the same cannot be disputed by virtue of Rule 2(4) of the Rules. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the impugned orders were passed without reference to the administrative committee and therefore sought for allowing of the writ petition. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel relied on the decisions reported in Government of A.P. v. M. Hayagreev Sarma : 1990 (2) SCC 682, Burn Standard Co. Ltd v. Dinabandhu Majumdar : AIR 1995 SC 1499, B. Siva Sanker Rao v. High Court of A.P. : 1999 (2) ALT 38 : 1999 ALT (Rev.) 354 : 1999 (2) ALD 569 (D.B.).

11. Smt. M. Bhaskara Laxtni, leaned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the petitioner did not declare his correct date of birth within one month from the date on which he joined duty. Relying on the decision reported in G. Krishna Mohan Rao's case (supra) it is contended that as per Rule 2-A of the Rules, the decree of a Civil Court in regard to alteration of the date of birth in the school or University Records or its effects of implementation shall not be taken into consideration in derogation to the above Rules. She further contended that since the petitioner himself furnished the date of birth in his application form, the same will only be binding under the rules in force and subsequent entry in the service register contrary to the entry in his own application and the original records maintained by the High Court will not advance the case of the petitioner. Learned Counsel further submitted that for the first time in the year 1992 the petitioner made application seeking alteration of date of birth and the same is impermissible at this stage as it has a chain reaction and entries recorded in the service records maintained by the High Court will be binding on the employee and therefore no interference is warranted in this writ petition as the same is hit by laches and doctrine of estoppel. In support of her contentions, learned Counsel relied on the decisions reported in Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy : AIR 1997 SC 2055 : 1997 (3) ALT 30 (D.N.), unreported judgments of this Court in W.P. No. 20461 of 2004 dated 8-11-2000, W.P No. 14084 of 2006 dated 24-10-2006, and also interim order of the Supreme Court in SLP Civil 22595 of 2004 dated 25-10-2004, wherein the Supreme Court ordered not to effect correction of date of birth of the respondent officer therein, pursuant to the decision in Sanyasi Rao v. High Court of A.P. : 2002 (3) ALT 92 (D.B.).

12. Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 reads as under:

2. Recording of date of birth:

(1) Every Government employee shall, within one month from the date on which he joins duty, makes a declaration as to his date of birth.

(2) On receipt of the declaration made under Sub-rule (1), the Head of Office or any other officer who maintains the service records in respect of such Government employee shall, after making such enquiry as may be deemed fit, with regard to the declaration and after taking into consideration such evidence, if any, as may be adduced in respect of the said declaration, make an order within four months from the date on which the Government employees joins service, determining the date of birth.

Provided that in cases where the date of birth as determined under this sub-rule is different from the one declared by the Government Employees concerned under Sub-rule (1), he shall be given an opportunity of making a representation, before a final order is made.

(3) Where a Government employee fails to make a declaration within the time specified in Sub-rule (1), the Head of Office or the officer who maintains the service records shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available and after giving an opportunity of making a representation to the Government employee concerned, determine the date of birth of the employee within six months from the date on which the Government employee joins service.

13. Rule 2(4) of the Rules mandates that the date of birth determined under this rule shall be entered in the service records of the employee concerned duly attested by the Head of Office or the officer who maintains the service records and the date of birth so entered shall be so final and binding and the Government employee shall be estopped from disputing the correctness of such date of birth. As per Rule 2(5), the date of birth as determined on the basis of the school records or any proof produced at the time of entering into service and entered in the service record shall be final and no subsequent variation of the date of birth in the school records for any reason, shall be relevant for the purpose of service and on that basis the date of birth entered in the service records shall not be altered except in the case of bona fide clerical error, under the orders of the Government.

14. In Hayagreeva Sarma's case (supra), the question that fell for consideration before the Apex Court was as to whether alteration of date of birth was permissible after enforcement of the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984. Since prayer for alteration in the date of birth so recorded finally, was rejected prior to coming into force of these Rules, therefore, it was held by the Apex Court that subsequent claim for alteration after commencement of the Rules are not permissible. In Dinabandhu Majumdar's case (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that ordinarily the High Courts should not in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ application/petition filed by an employee of the Government or its instrumentality, towards the fag end of his service, seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his' Service and Leave Record' or Service Register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement.

15. In G. Krishna Mohan Rao's case, (supra) while overruling the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sanyasi Rao's case (supra), it was held by the Full Bench of this Court that as per Rule 2-A of the Rules, the decree obtained by an employee for altering his date of birth as entered in the service register is not binding on the employer though he is a party to the suit. It was also held that a decree after the employee entered the service, directing the defendants therein to alter the date of birth entered in service records, cannot be sustained in view of the bar under Rule 2-A.

16. In C. Rama Swamy's case (supra) it was held by the Apex Court that an employee is entitled to seek change of his date of birth only in case of bona fide mistake in recording the date of birth at the time of employment.

17. In B. Siva Sanker Rao's case (supra) representation was made by the judicial officer for correction of the date of birth entered in service register and rejected order was passed basing on a resolution passed by the Administrative Committee even prior to the date of entry of the judicial officer's date of birth, passed in connection with the representation of other judicial officials, without considering the case on merits. In those circumstances, it was directed by the Division Bench of this Court to consider his case on its own merits. It is reported that the High Court on administrative side rejected his claim and hence he filed W.P. No. 20641 of 2004. It is noteworthy that the Division Bench of this Court in unreported judgment in W.P. No. 20641 of 2004 dated 8-11-2006, following its earlier judgment in W.P. No. 14084 of 2006 dated 24-10-2006, has held that once the date of birth is recorded on the basis of the school records or an y proof produced at the time of entering into service, shall be final and no variation of date of birth in the school records for any reason shall be relevant for the purpose of service.

18. The petitioner wants that his date of birth to be changed to 22-10-1953, as per the Service Register and pursuant to the decree of the Civil Court in O.S. No. 345 of 1986 dated 3-11-1986. The petitioner applied for the post of District Munsif by declaring his date of birth as 20-6-1950. Obviously, before joining the duty i.e. on 1-4-1987, the petitioner got the decree of the Civil Court on 3-11-1986 and that the petitioner was appointed on 1-4-1987. According to the petitioner at the time of joining the service, the District Judge, Machilipatnam opened his service Register and based on the records produced by him, recorded his date of birth as 22-10-1953. The contention of the petitioner is that at the time of submission of application form for the post of District Munsif in the year 1986 the date of birth was mentioned as 20-6-1950, since at that time the University Certificates mentioned the said date as his date of birth. It is only pursuant to the decree of the Civil Court obtained on 3-11-1986, i.e. before joining the duty he made an application for correction of his date of birth. Later on 14-12-1992 the petitioner made application seeking to rectify the date of birth in the High Court records to bring it on par with the entry made in the service register. It is to be noticed that the petitioner was initially posted at Machilipatnam and later he was sent for training to Guntur. In that view of the matter he should have been given a declaration as required under Rules to the District Judge, Machilipatnam within 30 days, whereas in the present case the petitioner gave declaration to the District Judge, Guntur after he was sent to training that too after 30 days.

19. We are afraid that this is not the import of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording & Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984, as the petitioner while offering himself as a candidate for the post of District Munsif (Direct Recruitment) declared his date of birth as 20-6-1950 in his application form submitted to the Public Service Commission. The petitioner claims that he made representation on 22-3-1987, to the High Court but no acknowledgement with regard to such representation has been made available to us.

20. It is true that once date of birth has been entered in the service records on the basis of the school records, it can never be changed in terms of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 2 of the Rules and it can be changed for any clerical mistakes only. As per the Rule 2(1) of the Rules, every Government employee shall within one month from the date on which he joins duty must make a declaration as to his date of birth. However, no such declaration information is made available to us by the petitioner. As per the service records maintained by the High Court the entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned as 20-6-1950. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, in the records of the High Court the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 20-6-1950, whereas in the service record it was mentioned otherwise. For all purposes, the registers maintained by the High Court are to be taken into consideration and as stated above, the petitioner's representation in this regard was belatedly submitted on 14-12-1992, though the petitioner joined the service on 1-4-1987, and thus the plea of the petitioner is hit by laches. The Full Bench of this Court in G. Krishna Mohan Rao's case (supra), has held that even if an employee is in possession of a decree declaring his date of birth to be different than what is recorded in his Service Register, that decree cannot be binding on employer even if the employer is a party to the suit in view of the bar created under Rule 2-A of the Rules. Since the petitioner himself gave a declaration as to his date of birth in the application form he is estopped from seeking alteration of the same at a subsequent point of time and the writ petition is thus hit by unexplained laches.

21. Even if the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 20-6-1950, the petitioner passed Matriculation (S.S.C.) in the year 1965-66, then he was aged 15 years. If the date of the birth as averred by the petitioner is taken into consideration i.e. as 22-10-1953, the petitioner would be aged about 12-13 years only. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the school records and that he obtained a Civil Decree before joining the duty does not inspire any confidence. Further, the petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2007 and if any relief sought for by the petitioner is considered, the consequences would flow down the line affecting other public servant, which will have a chain reaction.

22. For the foregoing discussion, we do not see any ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.