Jalli Manikya Rao Vs Transmission Corporation of Telangana Ltd.

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto direct the respondents to take him to into service and continue the^petitioner in^service treating his date of birth as 09-09-1965 pending disposal of the writ appeal.

¶19

Counsel for Appellant : SRIT.P.ACHARYA

¶20

Counsel for Respondents : SRI SRINIVASA SRIKANTH (SC FOR TG TRANSCO) The Court made the following JUDGMENT: -

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶22

THE TION'BI,E THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶23

WRTT APPEAI, No.908 of 2025

DATED : 08.01.2026

Between:

Jalli Manikya Rao

Appellant

AND

Transrnission Corporation of^'[elangana [.imited, Rep., by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somaj iguda, Hyderabad and another.

¶30

Respondents

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Mr.^'f.P. Acharya, learned counsel fbr the appellant.

¶33

Mr. S. Srikanth, learned Standing Counsel for Transmission

¶34

Corporation of^'felangana Limited appears for the respondents.

¶35

Appellant entered service on 07.07.1990 in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSCB) with a date of birth 0l .07.1964 as it appeared in his Secondary School Certificate (SSC) in which he appeared in April, 1981.

¶36

2

¶37

The correction in his date of birth by the Secondary School Certificate lvas made on 20.09.1993 to 09.09.1965. His first representation for correction of date of birth based up on the corrected Secondary School Certificate was made on 26.02.1994, which was rejected on l6.02.tggs. The appellant contends that the rejection was by cryptic order. His second representation was made on 09.03.2009 after 14 years which was again rejected on 16.01.2009. I-lc again macle a representation on 27.12.2016 for conection of' his datc of birth which was rejected on 29.05.2017. Thereafter only he approached thc rvrit Court in W.P.No.4z636 of 2017. The learned wrir Court has refuscd to grant relief relying upon a Division Bench decision ir-r w.A.Nos.1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016 on the ground of inordinate delay invoking the writ jurisdiction. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶38

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.

¶39

In matters of correction of date of birth, the delay is often fatal as by that time not only the matter becomes stale, but the seniority position inter se amongst the incumbents to the cadre, the chances of promotion to those who

¶40

3

¶41

are waiting in line also are likely to get affected if such correction is allowed at the fag-end ol'the service. In this case, the appellant was aware of the date of birth upon correction by the SSC on 20.09.1993. Even though his request was rejected on 16.02.1995 as being beyond the two years window period from^joining service, he waited till 2017 to prefer a writ petition. The appellant has superannuated in 2025.^'fhe learned writ Court refused to exercise its discretionar.'.iurisdiction on the ground of unexplained delay in seeking such correction ol'date of birth.

¶42

Upon hearing learned counsel fbr the pa(ies in the facts and circumstances noted above, we do not find any error in the approach of the learned writ Court.

¶43