Telangana High Court
V.Jennaiah vs The Municipal Council on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 28913 OF 2018
O R D E R:
Petitioner was initially working as casual labour in
the 1st respondent - Municipal Council, Bhongir from 1987
onwards in Public Health Department. After completion of five
years of service, petitioner along with others approached this
Court and obtained a direction to respondents to allow a
minimum of time scale in the last grade service and accordingly,
he was appointed to the last grade service in the minimum time
scale of Rs.1375-2375 on 17.04.1999. Petitioner immediately
reported along with Age certificate dated 20.04.1999 assessing
his age as 33 years as on 20.04.1999. His date of birth was
recorded as 03.07.1966 and the same was also mentioned in
Identity card.
It is stated, recently, petitioner came to know that
his date of birth was altered without any notice from 03.07.1966
to 03.07.1960 by an overwriting. He immediately made a
representation dated 15.12.2014 for rectifying the said
alteration and also take action against persons responsible. As
no action was taken, petitioner is stated to have filed O.A.No.
399 of 2016 before the Administrative Tribunal annexing thereto
service register, identity card, life insurance policy and copy of
his old school record of the 5th class. The said O.A. was
disposed on 25.02.2016 directing the 2nd respondent to dispose
of the representation of petitioner within six months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the said order. However, the 2nd
respondent, without causing any enquiry into the same, passed
the order dated 13.07.2018, impugned in this Writ Petition, on
the basis of a letter said to have been received from the school
Head Master dated 02.03.2018 stating that they maintained
records only from 08.12.2000 and that no bona fide certificate
was issued from their office and that there is record of the
same. Hence, the Writ Petition.
2. The Commissioner, Bhongir Municipality filed
counter stating that on the letter addressed by the 2nd
respondent on 22.05.2017, the Principal, MPPS, Hanmapur,
Yadadri-Bhongir District informed that no bona fide certificate
was issued, certifying the date of birth of petitioner as
03.07.1996 and no information regarding petitioner was
avialable. It is sate that before the Tribunal, petitioner produced
identity card, service register, life insurance policy and school
record of the 5th class, but did not produce the bona fide
certificate as the same was altered by him. It is pertinent to see
that both the record sheet and bona fide certificate were issued
on the same date i.e. 18.06.1978 but headmaster's signature
are different. It is also stated, seal stamp of the school which
was on the record sheet, the bold letter is sustained to M.P.P.S.
Hanmapur only but on the bona fide certificate the 'bold' is seen
throughout the stamp in the, the date was altered and it is
clearly visible; actually it appeared as 19.05.1978 and it was
altered to 18.06.1978, signature of headmaster which was on
the record sheet is different from the bona fide certificate, Circle
around first letter, circle should encircle the second letter and in
the end, there should be a wave to end the signature, but here
it ended smoothly. The third line of the alleged bona fide
certificate issued by the headmaster '8' is not written completely
and it could be seen the above date '18' it is written more
clearly. Based on the bona fide certificate, mentioning the date
of birth of the students, the certificates from 08.12.2000
onwards were issued only as per the details of the admission
register. The head master addressed in his letter that no bona
fide certificate was issued form their school certifying
petitioner's date of birth as 03.07.1966. Based on the said
information, the 2nd respondent informed petitioner through
the letter impugned that no modification of date of birth would
be done.
3. Heard Sri Allika Suresh, learned counsel for
petitioner. He relies on the judgment in Shankar Lal v.
Hindustan Copper Ltd. 1 and State of Tamilnadu v. TGV
(2022) 6 SCC 211
Venugopalan 2 and submits that once a date of birth is
recorded in the employee service book by the employer that
cannot be altered or modified by any person, even the employee
also cannot seek a relief for alteration of date of birth in service
register at the fag end of service to extend his tenure should
apply to the employer as well.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Sri
Ramesh Chilla reiterating the averments in the counter, made
his submissions, seeking to dismiss the Writ Petition.
5. To prove the date of birth 03.07.1996 as true,
petitioner along with Writ Petition produced the copy of service
book, health and age certificate, insurance policy, bona fide
certificate (record sheet) said to have been issued by the Head
Master, MPPS, Hanmapur, etcetera. Undoubtedly, all the above
documents show the date of birth as 03.07.1966. Whereas
respondents dispute the bona fide certificate, therefore, the 2nd
respondent addressed letter dated 22.05.2027 to the Principal,
MPPS, Hanmapur who informed that no such certificate was
issued by their school and the records are available only from
08.12.2000. From the letter dated 02.03.2018 addressed by the
Principal, the said fact is evident. Therefore, the representation
of petitioner was considered in the light of the above, pursuant
to the order of the Administrative Tribunal, and issued the
(1994) 6 SCC 302
impugned order stating that no modification of date of birth
would be done in the service register. Further, as pointed out
by the respondents, petitioner has not annexed the bona fide
certificate either with O.A. or the Writ Petition. He only annexed
the record sheet. The same also discloses alterations which
could not be answered by petitioner and also the signature of
Head Master is different from record sheet and the bona fide
certificate said to have been issued by the Principal on the same
day. There is no explanation forthcoming from petitioner in that
regard. In the light of the same, the judgments relied on by
petitioner cannot be taken into consideration. The Writ Petition,
in the considered opinion of this Court, does not merit any
consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
7. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
28th May 2025
ksld
