G Viswanath Vs the State of Ap

THE HEADMASTER, M.P.P.S. ATMAKUR (WEST) SCHOOL, PADAMATI STREET, TIPPA, ATMAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524322. RESPONDENT NO.5 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 02.04.2026 VIDE IA.NO.1 OF 2026 IN WP.NO.30456 OF 2023.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

¶20

2

¶21

pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in altering the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record from 20-6-1966 to 08-04- 1964, and rejecting the case of the petitioner vide Proc No EI/255(02)/2023-ATK (N), Dt 10-10-2023, as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, capricious, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice, with a consequential direction Direct the respondents herein to Treat the Date of Birth of the Petitioner as 20-061966 for all purposes, with all consequential benefits forthwith and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Direct the respondents herein to Treat the Date of Birth of the Petitioner as 20-06-1966 by suspending the Proc No: El/255(02)/2023-ATK (N), Dt 10-10-2023 for all purposes, forthwith. Pending disposal of the W. P, and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to file the counter affidavit in W.P. No.30456 of 2023 and pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to implead proposed respondent No. 5 as respondent in W.P. No.30456 of 2023 and allow and The Prayer in IA No.1/2026 is amended as per C.O. dt 2.4.2026 vide IA No.3/2026 pass

¶28

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased prayed that this pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to file the Reply affidavit in WP No: 30456 of 2023 and allow and pass such other order or orders

¶30

IA NO: 3 OF 2026

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased it is

¶32

3

¶33

hereby prayed that this pleased to Permit the petitioner to Amend the Prayer in I.A No.1 of 2026 From; May be pleased to implead proposed respondent No 5 as respondent in W P No 30456 of 2025 and allow and pass, To: May be pleased to implead proposed respondent No 5 as respondent in W P No 30456 of 2023 and allow and pass such other order or orders

¶34

IA NO: 4 OF 2026

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the Proposed Respondent Nos.6 and 7 as Respondents in W.P. No.30456 of 2023 and pass

¶36

IA NO: 5 OF 2026

¶37

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the additional material papers filed along with this affidavit in W.P. No. 30456 of 2023 and pass

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.PALICHERLA PARDHA SARADHI

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC

¶42

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

4

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶47

“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the respondents in altering the date of birth of the petitioner in the service record from 20-6-1966 to 08-041964, and rejecting the case of the petitioner vide Proc No EI/255(02)/2023-ATK (N), Dt 10-10-2023, as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, capricious, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice, with a consequential direction Direct the respondents herein to Treat the Date of Birth of the Petitioner as 20-06-1966 for all purposes, with all consequential benefits forthwith and pass….”

¶48

Heard Sri P.Pardhasaradhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶49

learned standing counsel for APSRTC for respondents.

¶50

In pursuance to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.17096 of 2021 dated 29.3.2023, respondent no.4 has passed the impugned orders after issuing notice and based on the record confirming the date of birth of the petitioner as 08.4.1964.

¶51

The undisputed fact in the case is that initially at the time of joining as driver, in the service register, the date of birth of the petitioner recorded as 20.6.1966 based on the Xerox copy of the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner. Subsequently, as per the regulations when the petitioner failed to produce the original certificate, the authorities have referred the petitioner to Medical Board and based on Medical Certificate, they have changed the date of birth as 08.4.1964. Aggrieved by the

¶52

5

¶53

same, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition i.e. W.P.No.17096 of 2021 and the said writ petition was considered and disposed of based on the Service Regulations 1964. Finally held that the impugned action of the respondents is contrary to Regulation 19 and passed the following order:

¶54

“Regulation No.19 mandates notice to the employee. Since counter does not indicate issuance of notice, respondent No.4 shall follow procedure i.e. issuance of notice to the petitioner and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish material available with him, in support of his contention that his date of birth is 20.06.1966. Respondent No.4 shall issue such notice to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner, in turn, shall submit required information to respondent No.3 within four weeks thereafter. Respondent No.4, after giving opportunity to the petitioner shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with Service Regulations, 1964 within four weeks thereafter. Till such time, the petitioner’s date of birth shall be treated as 20.06.1966.”

¶55

In compliance to the above said orders, the respondents have issued notice to the petitioner on 08.6.2023 and the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 11.7.2023 along with certain documents. Respondent no.4 has considered the documents along with the regulation and passed orders which reads as follows:

¶56

“As the petitioner failed to submit the record sheet in support of his date of birth as 20.6.1966 at the time of recruitment and for these 31 long years also, thereby the date of birth as determined as 08.4.1964 by applying the appropriate provisions of Regulation No.19(2)(b) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 cannot be altered in terms of Regulation No.19(3) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 with which it will result in the employee retain in service longer than if the alteration had not been made. The cause for assessment of date of birth in respect of the petitioner is not due to clerical error and the whole responsibility lies with himself only since he failed to submit the record sheet at the time of recruitment even though it is available with him.”

¶57

6

¶58

Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has failed to place the relevant material before the authorities on the earlier occasion as he could not be able to get. Subsequently, the petitioner has made an application under Right To Information Act before educational authorities and based on the same, the Mandal Education Officer and the Public Information Officer of MPP School, Atmakur and Head Master have issued endorsements on 07.4.2026 along with the certified copy of the admission register. Based on the above endorsement and also the findings in that, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 20.6.1966. Hence in the said circumstances, let one more opportunity may be provided to the petitioner to place the relevant material before the authorities and the authorities may reconsider the case of the petitioner as per Regulation 19 of Service Regulations 1964.

¶60

Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent APSRTC has vehemently opposed the said request as the issue has already been considered in the earlier occasion by this Court and pursuant to the directions of this Court, the authorities have provided one more opportunity by issuing notice and based on the material submitted by the petitioner, the authorities have considered and passed the orders. In fact, as per the regulations, once the petitioner was not able to provide

¶61

7

¶62

proper certificate at the time of opening of service register as per the regulations, the petitioner was sent to medical board and as per the medical certificate his age was determined as 28 years as of 1992 and accordingly his date of birth was registered as 08.4.1964. But for the technical reasons as directed by this Court one more opportunity has been provided to the petitioner and once the petitioner fails to produce proper certificate and authorities have considered and passed appropriate orders, hence requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶63

Considering the rival submissions, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case as the issue was already considered on facts by this Court in earlier Writ Petition i.e. W.P.No.17096 of 2021 and found that the action of the respondents is contrary to regulation 19 of Service Regulations 1964 and directed the authorities to re-consider the issue once again. The fact remains that the petitioner is unable to place the proper material at the time of re-consideration, but now the petitioner could able to get the relevant certificates under Right to Information Act and the same is placed along with I.A.

¶64

On perusal of the said documents, this court is of the opinion that as the petitioner is still in service, the respondents may re-consider the issue once again based on the documents which are procured through Right to Information Act. Hence liberty is granted to the petitioner to provide these documents along with order of this Court before respondent

¶65

8

¶66

no.4 within a period of one (01) week and if the petitioner provides these

¶67

documents, respondent no.4 may re-consider the issue based on the documents and pass appropriate orders.

¶68