Allowed

Dr. Chenna Ramulu v. Telangana Govt. Social Welfare Residential Educational Society

Telangana HC14 Jul 2025WP/34231/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the proceedings rejecting the petitioner's request to correct his date of birth in service records. The court found that the respondent had passed the impugned order hastily, without obtaining necessary information from other respondents as specifically directed by a previous order, and without proper application of mind.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Impugned proceedings dated 15.11.2023 set aside. Matter remitted to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with the law and previous court

Dr. Chenna Ramulu Vs Telangana Govt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

a32s2l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTEqNTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 34231 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dr. Chenna Ramulu, S/o. Yakaiah, Aged 58 years, Occ ; Health Supervisor, Telangana Social Welfare Residential School/Junior College (Boys), Gollapally at Maggidi, Dharmapuri Mandal, Jagtial District, Pin 505425, Fi/o. H. No.2- 148 Velubelli Village, Kothaguda Mandal Via Narsampeta, Mahabubabad District, 506135, T S.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Telangana Govt. Social Welfare Residpntial Educational Society, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Represented by its Secretary.

¶12

Board of Secondary Education, State of Telangana, Gun foundry, Hyderabad, Represented by its Secretary.

¶13

The Commissioner and Director of School Education, State of Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad 500004.

¶14

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary To Govt. , Social Welfare Dept. , Secretariat Bldgs Hyderabad.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, declaring the proceedings Rc. No. Zone- 5/PWF|/812O23 dated 15.11.2023 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, malafide; void and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 ol the Constitution of lndia and set aside the same issue consequential direction directing the 2nd 4nd 3rd respondents to forthwith alter the date of birth of the petitioner in the S.S.C.Certificate Bearing No. A 018123

¶17

and Roll No. 388528 dated March, i984 in pursuance of the proposal sent by the Headmaster, Z. p. p. S. S , Boys, Gudur Village, Gudur t\4andal, Mahabubabad District in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner dated 19'09.2023 as directed by the 2nd respondent, further direct the 1st respondent to alter the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Relyister as 26. .r 0. .r967 instead of 01. 04. 1965 in pursuance of the arteration by the 2nd and 3rd respondent in S.s.c.certificate of the petitioner, pending disposar of the writ Petition and further direct the 1st respondent to alow the p€,titioner to continue in service treating his date of birth as 26. 10. 1967 instead of 01.04.196s.

¶18

l.A.NO:1 oF 2023

¶19

Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the cir:umstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High coun may be preased to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent to fo(hwith arter the date of birth of the petitioner in the S.S C. certificate Bearing No.A 018.r23 and Roil No. 3gB528 dated March, 1gg4 in pursuance of the proposar sent by the Headmast et, z. p. p. S' S' Boys, Gudur Viilage, Gudur Mandar, Mahabubabad District in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner dated 19.0g.2023 as directed by the 2nd respondent and further direct the 1st respondent to arter- the date of birth of the petitioner in the service Register as 26. i0. 1967 insteari of 01. 04. 1965 in pursuance of the arteration by the 2nd and 3rd respondent in S. s. c. certificate of the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI P.V.KRISHNAIAH

¶21

9911_r:1.f31 lhe^{Respondenr No.1: SRI S.BHOoPAL} REDDY (Sc FOR SrATE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY'

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : G.p FOR SERVICES _t

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : G.p FOR SERVICES -ll

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶26

WRIT PETITI ON No.3 23L O F 2023

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri p.V.Krishanaiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶29

2 The Detitioner a Doroa ched the Court s ekinq oraver as under:

¶30

"... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the proceedings Rc.No.Zone-s /pWRlB/2023, dated 15.IL.2023 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, malafide, void and u nconstitutiona l, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same; issue consequential direction directing the 2nd and 3.d respohdents to forthwith alter the date of birth of the petitioner in the S.S.C. Certificate Bearing No. A 018123 and Roll No. 3gg528, dated March, 1984 in pursuance of the proposal sent by the Headmaster Z.P.P.S.S. Boys, Gudur Village, Gudur Mandal, Mahabubabad District in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner dated L9.Og.2OZ3 as directed by the 2nd responddnt, further direct the 1st

¶31

¶32

SN, J

¶33

respondent to alter the date of birth^{of the petitioner in} the Service Register as 26.10.1967^insteadof 01.04.1965 in^pursuance of^{the alteration by the2nd} and 3'd respondent in S.S.C^{Certificateof tl-e petitioner,} pending disposal of the Writ Petltion and^f :rther^direct the 1't respondent to allow^{the petitioner to continue in} service treating his date of birth^{as 26.10..-967instead} of 01.04.1965 and^pass..."

¶34

3 The case the oetitioner in riel' as Der the averme nts made in th^{e affidavit filed bv the Detitroner ln}

¶35

rt of th r ent Wri P nrsa er:-

¶36

The petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled^{Caste community,} was initially appointed as a^{Health Supervi;orunder the} jurisdiction of the 1st respondent on a contr.rctual basis^on 28.08.2002, and the^{petitioners services werr3 subsequently} regularized with effect from 01.10.2007.

¶37

It is specific case of the^{petitioner that the petitioner's} grievance pertains to the erroneous recording of^{his date of birth} during his early schooling.^{The petitioner'sdate of birthwas} originally recorded as 26.10.1967^{in the admissiorrregister of 1st} Standard. However, it^{was altered to 1966 in 2nd Standard,and} later to 01.04.1965 in 3rd Standard, withoul:^{any parental}

¶38

¶39

SN, J

¶40

consent or supporting documentation. This erroneous date of birth, 01.04.1965, continued through out the petitioners academic records, including the 1Oth Class, and subsequently reflected in the SSC certificate issued by the Board.

¶41

Upon realization of this error after the petitioners regular appointment, the petitioner made eFforts to correct the discrepancy. The petitioner obtained the relevant school records and submitted a representation dated 04.04.20L6 to the respondents, requesting correction of the petitioner,s date of birth in the service records to reFlect the correct date as 26.t0.7967.

¶42

As the said representation nemained unaddressed, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble COurt by filing W.p. No. 30869 of 2017, which was disposed of on 24.04.2023, directing the lst respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶43

It is further the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Court's direction, the petitioner once again submitted detailed representations to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, enclosing all relevant documents in support of the petitioner's claim. The 2nd

¶44

¶45

SN, J

¶46

respondent directed that the correction Propre5s; be^routed through the^proper educational hierarchy. Conrplying with this directive, the petitioner submitted the^propo:;al through^the Headmaster, the Mandal Educational Officer^riMEO), and^the District Educational Officer^(DEO), Mahabubabac. The DEO,^vide proceedings dated 27.09.2023, acknowledged .he request and sought submission of the correction^proposal in the^prescribed fo rm at.

¶47

While the proposal for correction was und:r consideration before the respondent Nos.2 & 3, the 1't resp,ondent,^without awaiting their final decision, rejected the^{petitiorrer's} request^for correction of the date of birth in the service^{register,through} proceedings dated 15.11.2023. The rejection was based on the reasoning that such a correction could not be done without corresponding alteration in the SSC certificate. F,ggrieved by the said rejection the petitioner filed the^present writ^petition

¶48

4, PERUSED THE RECORDI A. The levant oortion of he order of this Court- dated 24.O4.2023 oassed in W.P.No.3O869 of 2O1.7 is extracted hereu nder

¶49

¶50

SN, J

¶51

In that view of the matter, withou t going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is d isposed of directing the respondents, particularl y the 1st respondent, after it stated to have been made by the petitioner to the 1st respondent, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of ffl is order and communicate the same to the petitioner. B eri edP c c z e- P R o 1 1 o2 e b th 1"t r s d rs r er n r:-

¶52

In the reference 1't read above, Dr.Ch. Ramulu, Health Supervisor, TSWRS/JC(G). Goilapalty, :usityui District has filed W.p.No.30B69 of 2017 sqeking tn. Oi."ttion. from the Hon'ble High Court to atter tnb Oate of birtfrls 26.t0.tg67 instead of 01.04.1965 in the Service nugirt". of the individual. The Hon'ble High Court wnile Oispoting the case on 24.04.2023. direcred the Secretary, iSWnEf Society that "after ob-taining necessarv information from the other respondents [i.e. Board of Secondary Educatinn. TS. Gun foundry, Hyderabad and the CommissLnei& oirector oF School, TS, Hyderabad land pass appropriale Jrders on the representation dated : 04.04.2016".

¶53

In the reference 2nd read above, Dr.Ch. Ramulu, Health Supervisor, TSWRS/JC(G). poilapa1y,- jusiirur District white enctosing the represehtation out"Ji 6+ .04.20t6, court order dated 24.04.2023 and the Xerox topy of the Date of Birth certificate issued by the Heid Master, Upper lrilary^{School,Kothagudaon 28.07.20t0} hai requested to implement the court orders.

¶54

In the reference 3.d read dbove, the Director, School representation dated 04.07.2023 Education, Telangana state of while Dr.Ch "niio.ing Ramulu, Healththe

¶55

¶56

SN, J

¶57

Supervisor^{has requested to takenecessaryaction in the} oii"it or^{the Hon'ble High Courtin W'P'Nc'30869of 20t7} iutii zq.q.z023^{as the non'ble High Courtparticularly} Ji.".t"A the 1't respondent, to^{conslder and pass} appropriate^{orders in W.P'No.30869 of 2Ol-7'}

¶58

In the reference^{4th read above, the Additional loint} Seiretiry,^{Director of GovernmentExz minations'TS'} has informed to^{Dr Ch Rarnuluthat "the} H;;";;a Oirector of School^{Educationis the competent authorityto} giu"-oia".. for making^{correctionof Date of Birth in the} EompieteO SSCs^{and d-irected the individual to submit the} io.rS.iion^{proposal along with relevant documentsto the} Oirector. of bchool^{Education, Telangana,Hyderabad} inrougtr^{proper channeli.e., through Head Master of the} Schoo-l concerned,^{Mandal EducationOfficer & District} Education Officer,^Warangal.

¶59

In the reference^{5th read above, Dr'Ch'Ramulu'} Health Supervisor^{and Principal, TSWRS/JC(G)'} Coflapuffy, Jagityal^{District was direr:ted to attend} before the Secretary^{TSWREIS on 30'10'2O23along} *ltt, ,fl original evidences^{for hearing'Accordingly'} itre^{p.incipa'1, TSWRS/JC Gollapally, Jagityat District} ind or.Ch. Ramulu,^{HealthSupervisor have attended} for hearing on^{3O.1O.2023beforethe Secretary'} TSWREIS.

¶60

In m nce th Ho le R hc urt rd er he res ati da o 4. 16i con idere nd fter v rifi tio f r rds rod ed 23 h Dr ch. muluon hearinq^{date i.e.3.to} reo uest ofthe^{idividal foralteri nq hisdateof bi} h as 26.LO.^L967 nstea ofO .04.19^{55 isrelectedon} School Certificate the^qrounds hat, in Sec^onda videHa ll tic etN .388s 28 hisda of birth^is me ron as .o 65 t D o irth ce fic n ro at d re d ann e nsr re tn n r heD fBi en red sc a h ve re en

/
I

SN, J

The request of Dr.Ch. Ramultt, Health Supervisor is also rejected on the following grounds:_

¶65

As per AP Public Employment (Recording & Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules 1984) 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 suEsequent variation of date of birth in the School records for dny 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 bonafide clerical error, under the orders of the Government.

¶66

In any proceedings before the Government or any court, tribunal or other authority regard to alteration of the date of birth in the service records, the decree of a civil court in regard to alteration of date of birth in the school or the university records or the contents in the Judgment leading to such decree, or the effect of its implementation shall nol be taken into consideration in derogation to these rules and it is hereby declared that these iules shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment decree or order of a civil court ii-t regard to the alteraiion of date of birth in the School or the University records whether or not the Govern/trent is a part to such proceedings.

¶67

Hence, the Hon'ble High Court orders in W.p.No.30869 of 20L7 are hereby complied.

¶68

The Principal TSWRS/JC Gollqpalty, Jagityat District is hereby directed to take necessary action accordingly and serve the copy to the individual.

¶69

DIS USSIO AND C o NCLUSI ON:5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order impugned, dated 15.11.2023 issued by the l"t reppondent rejecting the

SN, J

request of the petitioner^pertaining to the alteration^{of the} petitioner's date of birth as 26.LO.L957 instead of 01.04.1965 is contrary to the earlier orders^{of this Court,} dated 24.04.2023^passed in W.P.No:30869^of2Ol7 wherein this Court directed the respondents,^particularly the 1"t respondent herein to obtain necessary^information from the other respondents i.e., responclent^{Nos.2 & 3} herein and then to consider and^pass appropriate^orders on the representation of the^{petitioner, dated04.04.2016} made to the 1't respondent, in accordance to law,^withina period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and communicate the^'decision to^the petitioner.

¶74

A bare perusal of the order impugned, dated 15.11.2023 issued by the 1't respondent clearly^indicates that the specific direction as observedⁱⁿ the order^passed by this Court, dated 24.04.2O23 in^{W.P.No.3O869of 2Ol7} which clearly directed the l"t respondlent to^obtain necessary information from the respondent^{Nos.2 & 3} herein had not been foltowed and,^{the order impugned} was passed hastily, without application^{of mind in a}

¶75

¶76

SN, J

¶77

routine mechanical manner and therefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petationer contends that the Writ Petition has to be pllowed as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ petition.

¶78

A bare perusal of para No.5 of the impugned proceedings, dated 1S.11.2023 of the 1.t respondent, clearly indicates that the petitioner was directed to attend enquiry before the Secretary, TSWREIS on 3O.10.2O23 along with original evidences for hearing and accordingly, the petitioner and atso thF principat, TSWRS/JC Gollapally, Jagityal District attended for hearing on 30.10.2023 before the Secretary, TSWREIS, but without awaiting the outcome of the said enquiry and also without obtaining the information from ttqe other respondents i.e., respondent Nos.2 & 3, as specifically directed by this Court in its order, dated 24.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.3O869 ot 2017, filed by the petationer on an earlier occasion the impugned proceedings, dated 15.11.2023 had been passed by the l"t respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner pertaiqing to the atteration of petitioner's date of birth as 26.LO.1967 instead of

-f (

sN !

01.04.1965 hastily by the l"t respondent,^without application of mind in a routine^{mechanicalmanner by-} passing the Court orders, dated 24'04.2O23^passedin W.P.No.30869, only to avoid the contenipt^proceedings.

¶83

Ta no into consideration l-

¶84

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances^{of the case.} b) The submissions made by the^{learned counsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner and learned} Assistant Government Pleader for^{Services-Ilappearing} on behalf of the respondents.

¶85

c) The earlier order of this Court,^{dated 24-O4.2O23} passed in W.P.No.3O869 of 2Oa7^(referred to^and extracted above)

¶86

d) The contents of the order^impugned Proca.Rc.No.Zone-slPWRl8/2023,^{dated15.11.2023} issued by the 1't respondent^{(referred to and extracted} above), which clearly indicate^{that the specific directions} issued vide orders of this Court,^{dated24.04.2O23 passed} in W.P.No.3O869 of 2OL7 had not^{been considered nor} implemented in its letter and spirit^{an(l the fact that} necessary information had^{not been obtained from the}

SN, J

other respondents i e., reFpondent Nos.2 & 3 as specifically directed bY thls Court and the orders impugned, dated 15.11.2023 had been passed hastily by the 1.t respondent, without application of mind in a routine mechanicat manner, only to avoid contempt proceedings.

¶91

T t Pe iti s d r ro c o e-5 P I o ed b 1"t re s a d r remitted to th 1"t reSDon dent to nsider subIE rssu e as directed bv hi Co urt vi eit s ordet, d ted 4 o 3 s P t L7 u r n r a r fi tr s t e e nder, tn a rda n to w, tn conformitv wt h c

¶92

s fn t r b f f n I n r f t u 4 f h e f ft order and dul com mu n rcate the dectsion th e oetitioner, However, there shall be no order as to costs.

SN, J

Miscellaneous^petitions, if^{any, pending in this Writ}

¶97

Petition, shall stand^closed.

¶98

SD/- AHMED DULLAH^KHAN ASSI T REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

to ,. ,n" Secretary, Telangana Govt Social Welfare Resident al Educational

¶103

SocietY,^{MasibTank, HYderabad'}

¶104

The Secreta.v,^{eortd oitJ"oioiryeoucation'State of Telangana'Gun} foundry, HYderabad.

¶105

foundry, HYderabad.

¶106

1. The Commissioner^{and Directorof School Education'StaLteof Telangana'} Saifabad,^{HYderabad500004'}

¶107

The^{Principat S"cr.tii"t"otovernment'SocialWelfareDept ' Secretariat} Bldos Stat-e^{of Telanqana at Hyderabad'}

¶108

i#"cc';'i"^{c.p ioiidEnvriEs- r, Highcourt for the state of Telansana} at Hvderabad.Hvderabad.

¶109

at Hvderabad.Hvderabad.

¶110

1. ?i;;';c';i;t^{p ron SERVICES - ll, High court forthe: State of relangana} at Hvderabad.

¶111

?. 6;;'cc 6 sit^{P.v. KRIsHNAIAH,Advoc-ate^[oPUCl}

¶112

one cc^{to sRl s.BHbb;Ai iiEoof isc ron srAtE FIESIDENTIAL} " EoucArbrlnl socterv) Advocate [oPUc]

¶113

Two CD^CoPies

N1,. t/

E -;=Tr.-

-^{--;-tJ.----:j-;-r*}

C.C. TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410712025

1 lri . -' ' Ill
/);
'7
D , . .rn ,J 116
).
.{.
t.:.. i i -_-":i .:.:.
3.- - :

ORDER

WP.No.34231 ot 2023

ALLOWING THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

<br>q

Dr. Chenna Ramulu v. Telangana Govt. Social Welfare Residential Educational Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Chenna Ramulu v. Telangana Govt. Social Welfare Residential Educational Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

kommu prasad Vs Sri. T.Sudhakar

Smt Mahankala Shanthavva. Vs Sri Srinivas Reddy

Kolli Yadagiri Reddy Vs Shri. T. Vinay Krishna Reddy IAS

Elka Yellamma Vs The State of Telangana And 4 Others

M. Sanja Goud Vs The State of Telangana

T.Devakamma Vs The State of Telangana