APHC010469622018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI WRIT PETITION Between: N.veeraiah The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M.CHALAPATHI SC For Nagarjuna University 2. GP FOR HIGHER The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 22024/2018 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): M.CHALAPATHI SC For Nagarjuna University GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) The Court made the following: [3396] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: "...to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent- University in issuing the proceedings dated 04.01.2018 vide No. ANU/Estt/ NTS/ S.I/ RN/ 2018 for retirement of the petitioner on superannuation of age of 60 years without considering the representation dated 18.06.2018 for correction of date of birth as 25.08.1964 instead of 01.07.1958 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principals of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to continue the petitioner in the service by correcting the date of birth in the service register as 25.08.1964 instead of 01.07.1958 forthwith and to pass..." 2. Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education and Sri M.Chalapathi, learned Standing counsel for the University. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein joined in the University as Watchman/NMR on 05.10.1979. Thereafter, University has sent a proposal for regularization mentioning his Date of Birth as 25.08.1964. The petitioner after regularization in the year 2013, he came to know that his Date of Birth is wrongly entered in the service register as 01.07.1958. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 04.08.2014 and that was not considered by the University. Hence, he preferred a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.22938 of 2015 that was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders. Learned Counsel would submit that the respondent-University did not choose to pass any orders on the representation. Learned counsel would further submit that in the proposal which was submitted for regularization, the petitioner's date of birth is correctly mentioned. Learned counsel would further submit that the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner also would show that his date of birth as 25.08.1964. In the light of wrong entry made in the Service Register regarding his date of birth, the petitioner was forced to retire from service which is before his retirement, he preferred the present petition. He lost six (06) years of service because of the wrong entry made by the respondent-University. 4. Per contra, Learned Standing Counsel for the University would submit that when the University wanted to submit a proposal for regularization of the employees who were working as NMRs in the light of the orders of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.212. The age of the petitioner and some other employees are underage, as one of the Rule in G.O.Ms. No. 212 would show that by the date of joining in the institution as NMR, they have to complete the age of 18 years. As per the date of birth of the petitioner i.e., 25.08.1964, he could not complete the age of 18 years by the date of entry into the Institution as Watchman on 05.10.1979. While so, the petitioner and some others who are underage made a representation to the University. The representation of the petitioner dated 20.08.2001 also would show that his parents were illiterates, they have given wrong date of birth, in fact he has completed the age of 18 years by the date of joining as NMR in the University. Learned Standing counsel would further submit that the representation of the petitioner dated 14.08.2014 has been considered and rejected. The order is also communicated to the petitioner vide Orders dated 16.12.2015. The University has rightly retired the petitioner as per the date of birth as assessed by the Medical Board. In that view, learned Standing counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, the fact remains that at the time of seeking proposal for regularization of the date of birth as 25.8.1964, he was 15 years old as per the Matriculation Certificate. It is also not in dispute that when the petitioner has submitted a representation stating that his parents are illiterate, he is above 18 years vide representation dated 20.8.2001. 6. The record further shows that the respondent authorities have sent the petitioner and some other persons who were working as NMR’s to the Medical Board for age determination, as per the age determination certificate dated 17.9.2001 issued by Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur, the petitioner is shown as 43 years. 7. It is also brought on record that the proceedings issued by the Vice Chancellor, Acharya Nagarjuna University dated 28.12.2005 wherein the petitioner was shown as Serial No.9-N.Veeraiah, Watchman against which his date of birth as 01.07.1958 in the service register, that being so, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 04.6.2014 by passing rejection order dated 04.01.2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioner that his date of birth is 25.8.1964. This Court does not find any merit in this Writ Petition and is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed and the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 24.3.2024 TJN 192 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 22024 OF 2018 Dated: 24.03.2025 TJN HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Writ Petition No.22024 of 2018 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 08. 24.03.2025 Dr.VJP, J The Writ Petition is dismissed. (Vide Separate Order) _________ Dr.VJP, J TJN