IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV^I ^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) rs THURSDAY. THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIl/o {{j TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI WRIT PETITION NQ: 44110 OF 2ni« .'V,a > PRATAPA Between: a Veera Reddy^E 510720, Drive, s/o Chenrra Reddy, Nellore I depot, aged about 55 years, R/o 26/1000, BV Nagar, NGO's Colony, Nellore Dist. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by Managing Director, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist 2. The Regional Manager, APSRTC its Nellore Region, Nellore, Nellore dist. 3. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nellore-I depot, Nellore, Nellore dist. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the circumstances stated i of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue writ, order or directions Mandamus declaring the action of the may more in the nature of Writ of respondents herein in not correcting 02-06-1963 as per school certificate in place of 03-11-1960 by following the APSRTC the petitioner date of birth Regulations as illegal, arbitrary, , corporation and contrary to Law and violation of principles of natural Justice and set aside the Notification dated 01-06-2018 contrary to Regulations of the same including the direct the of birth as 02-06-1963 as for retirement and further respondents herein to correct the petitioner date per the school certificate and continue the petitioner in service till attaining per the school Certificate 02-06-1963 with the age of superannuation as all consequential benefits, as otherwise petitioner may suffer irreparable loss " '• and hardship. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioner in service as per the date of birth 02-06-1963. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010913462018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 44110/2018 Between: S. Veera Reddy ...PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PGOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC 2.P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “...to issue writ order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not correcting the petitioner date of birth as 02.06.1963 as per school certificate in place of 03.11.1960 by following the APSRTC Regulations as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Regulations of the corporation and contrary to Law and violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same including the Notification dated 01.06.2018 for retirement and further direct the respondents herein to correct the petitioner date of birth as 02.06.1963 as per the school certificate and continue the petitioner in service till 2 attaining the age of superannuation as per the school Certificate 02.06.1963 with all consequential benefits as otherwise petitioner may suffer irreparable loss and hardship..." Heard Sri P. Govinda Rajulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C for the respondents. 2. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner initially appointed as Contract Driver in the year 1990, thereafter in the year 1991, he was removed from was service on the allegation of submitting fake School Transfer Certificate. Learned Counsel would further submit that the reviewing authority has sent the petitioner to the Medical examination. The Medical board examined the petitioner and issued a report to the effect that the approximate age of the petitioner is 35 years. The authorities have fixed the date of birth of the petitioner as 03.11.1960 and the petitioner continued Driver. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioner came to know on 01.06.2018 in pursuance of the notification issued by the Department that he is going to retire by 30.11.2018 since his date of birth was recorded as 03.11.1960. Learned Counsel would further submit that simply basing on the Medical Officer’s report, the date of birth is fixed as 03.11.1960 instead of as taking into account the Study Certificate of the petitioner wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 02.06.1963. Learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C would submit that there no bonafides in the petition. The petitioner is much aware about considering this date of birth as 03.11.1960. He has never submitted any objections 4. are ^^^^^egarding the same. He continued as Driver till his superannuation. As afterthought, the present Writ Petition i finally prays for dismissal of the petition. an filed. Learned Standing Counsel IS 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned Standing Counsel petitioner is much aware about the Medical Examination basing on which his date of birth has been decided as 03.11.1960. The fact , the remains that the petitioner has not placed on record, the alleged fake Transfer Certificate to understand and compare with his date of birth as per the Study Certificate to show that his date of birth is 02.06.1963. Admittedly, the petitioner raised any objections about his date of birth during his entire service but only at the fag-end of his service, when the respondent-authorities issued never notification that he shall retire on 30.11.2018, he has approached this Court seeking amendment of his date of birth. This Court does not find any merits/bonafides in the present petition. The Writ Petition deserves dismissal. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. AOO.^ Sd/-N NAGAMMA assistant REGIStflAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri P Govinda Rajulu Advocate [OPUC] rnl?i in? Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC) Advocate [wr UOj 3. Three CD Copies TF V HIGH COURT DATED:17/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.44110 of 2018 a 13 OCT 2025 rrenlStcfa gPATC mi «o' DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS