HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 1071 OF 2014 05-09-2014 BETWEEN K. Bhupal Reddy …Appellant And The Electronics Corporation of India Limited (A Government of India Enterprise), Department of Atomic Energy, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad and another …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 1071 OF 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
The appellant joined the service of the 1st respondent – Corporation in the year 1979 as Helper. While joining the service, he produced a transfer certificate issued by Zilla Parishad High School, Raghunathapuram which showed his date of birth as 25- 07-1954. The said date was entered in the service record of the appellant.
The appellant states that while in service, he has studied and passed SSC examination and in the SSC certificate, his date of birth was mentioned as 25-07-1956. According to him, the original date of birth itself was 25-07-1956, but it was wrongly mentioned in the transfer certificate as 25-07-1954. The entry in the transfer certificate is said to have been rectified by the concerned head of the institution.
The 1st respondent proposed to retire the appellant from service on attaining the age of 60 years reckoned from 25-07-1954 as entered in the service record. The appellant states that he made a representation in the year 1992 with a request to rectify the date of birth in the service record and without taking steps, they are proposing to retire him. Therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 17446 of 2009, with a prayer to correct his date of birth as 25-07-1956 and continue him in service accordingly.
The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit. It was stated that the representation submitted by the appellant on 17-10-1992 was considered and the same was rejected and it was communicated to him. It was pleaded that the application itself was made 13 years after joining service and the same is impermissible as per Rule 15 of the ECIL Service Rules.
The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order dated 31-12-2013. Hence this writ appeal.
Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that an inadvertent error has crept into the transfer certificate and thereby into the service record as to date of birth and when a representation was made soon after noticing it, no steps were taken by the 1st respondent. He submits that the original admission register and all other records disclose that the date of birth of the appellant is 25-07-1956 and the same was not being taken into account by the 1st respondent. He has arranged the production of various original records of the school for the relevant period.
Sri D. Srinivas, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that once a date of birth is entered in the service record, it becomes final unless rectification thereof is sought within five years form the date of joining. Placing reliance upon various precedents, he contends that a belated application for rectification of entries in the service record cannot be accepted and even otherwise, there must be some basis therefor.
The appellant did not pass SSC when he joined the service of the 1st respondent. In the transfer certificate that was produced by him, the date of birth was mentioned as 25-07-1954. Several years after he joined the service, the appellant acquired SSC qualification as a private candidate. In the certificate so issued, his date of birth was mentioned as 25-07- 1956.
The SSC or matriculation certificate is treated as the basis in the context of date of birth. That however is possible if only the candidate passes in the first attempt. The reason is that, entries in the certificate are made on the basis of the record maintained by the authorities. For a private candidate, the source of information is not the same. If there exists any discrepancy between the date of birth mentioned in a transfer certificate on the one hand and the subsequent SSC certificate on the other hand, former becomes authenticated. The appellant proceeded in the reverse direction. First, he got the entry in the transfer certificate which he obtained when he joined the service rectified on the basis of SSC certificate obtained as a private candidate more than a decade after joining the service. Thereafter, he approached the 1st respondent to correct the entries in the service record. While the 1st respondent pleads that an order of rejection was passed in the year 1992 itself, the appellant feigns ignorance thereof.
Even if he was ignorant about it, an order which is already passed by the 1st respondent cannot be ignored. Assuming that there was a delay or failure on the part of the 1st respondent in this behalf, no right can be said to have accrued to the appellant on that account. It is only when the entry in the service record is modified that the retirement can be insisted on the basis of that. Even today, the entry in the service record of the appellant reflects the date of birth as 25-07-1954. As long as that remains, no relief can be granted.
We have also perused the original record placed before this Court. There are several corrections and rectifications therein and it is not at all safe to treat that as basis. At any rate, the rectification of entries in the service records cannot be permitted at the fag end of the service. The appellant has already retired from service.
The writ appeal is therefore dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 05-09-2014 ks Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/O ks