B. Siva Sanker Rao vs High Court of A.P.

A.S. Bhate, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the respondent''s order dated 13-11-1997, by proceedings No.4518/97-B Section, rejecting his representation. The representation of the petitioner was for purpose of making an entry in the Service Register regarding his true date of birth. Admittedly, the petitioner while entering his service had to supply the Secondary School Certificate. It is his own case that while taking admission in the School wrong date of birth was given in order to avail the benefit of entry in school. This was probably with a view that he could appear at the S.S.C. Examination at the age specified for the examination. We are not concerned with that aspect at this stage. After selection in service he made the aforesaid representation.

When the representation came up for consideration before the Administrative Committee of the respondent, it appears that apart from the petitioner''s representation several representations of other officers also came up for consideration and resolution was passed in the following terms :

"Considered and since it is found that entry in respect of the date of birth in the Service Record has been made on the basis of the representation of the concerned officer/officers and materials produced including decrees of civil Courts did not inspire confidence, resolved that representations for alteration of dates of birth be rejected".

The grievance of the petitioner is that due to some mistake his case has been clubbed with the other officers. He had not produced any decree of civil Court in support of his claim that his date of birth was different from one which appeared in the Secondary School Certificate. He also says that there was no question of his date of birth having been recorded in the Service Register when the said resolution was passed. There appears to be merit in the contention that due to some error the matter was not properly placed vis-a-vis the petitioner, by the Registry before the Administrative Committee. The "record which has been placed before us by the respondent''s Counsel shows that the entry in the Service Register regarding date of birth was recorded for the first time only on 20-3-1998. The impugned proceeding has been passed on 13-11-1997. Thus, there was no entry in Service Register existing on that date as referred in the resolution. Further it is not disputed by Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi the learned Standing Counsel for the High Court that the petitioner had not produced any decree of any civil Court in support of his claim. The common resolution, apparently did not consider the case of the petitioner on its own merits. We are not saying that the petitioners case has any merit or not. But the fact remains that due to some error the petitioner''s case has not been considered on its own merits.

In the circumstances, we feel that the petitioner''s case should be considered on its own merits as the reasons given in the impugned resolution were apparently not applicable to the petitioner''s case.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 13-11-1997, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is set aside. It is open to the petitioner to make a further representation to the respondent and the respondent may consider the petitioner''s representation on its own merits. No costs.