APHC010642102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 33471/2025 Between: Kadirikota Adamu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAKARLA CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In 2. (SC FOR MUNCIPALITIES)K BHEEMA RAO 3. GP FOR SERVICES I for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.33471 of 2025 O R DE R: 1. The Writ Petition is filed questioning the termination of the Petitioner as a Public Health Worker in the Respondent No. 4 Municipality on the ground that the Petitioner attained the age of 60 years as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as Public Health Worker in the year 2008 and has been discharging his duties for the last 17 years, and the Petitioner has been allotted APCOS ID- 109723743. While so, the services of the Petitioner were discontinued on the ground that the date of birth of the Petitioner was registered in the office records of the Respondents as 08.02.1965, and since the Petitioner has attained the age of 60 years, the services of the Petitioner were discontinued. The Petitioner submitted representations contending that the age of the Petitioner was wrongly noted in the ‘APCOS Portal’ and that his actual date of birth is 22.06.1978 and he is aged only 47 years. The Petitioner submitted a representation on 13.10.2025, enclosing an Election ID Card, Aadhar Card, Household Ration Card, School Study Certificate, and Date of Birth Certificate to 3 substantiate his age. In the said representation, the Petitioner has consented to ossification or medical tests for determination of his age. However, the same is not being considered by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.4 would submit that appropriate decision will be taken with regard to the representation of the Petitioner dated 13.10.2025 as expeditiously as possible. 4. Sri Bheema Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for Respondent No. 2, submits that the age of the Petitioner is entered into the database as per the information furnished by Respondent No. 4, and they have no right in determining the age of the Petitioner. 5. Heard the respective counsel. 6. In the present case, the Petitioner, who is claiming his age as 48 years, is retired on the ground that he has attained the age of 60 years and a mere physical appearance of the Petitioner itself determines whether the Petitioner is aged 60 years or 47 years. 4 7. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) The Respondent No.4 Municipality is directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 13.10.2025 in the light of the documents enclosed thereto i.e., Election ID Card, Aadhar Card, House Hold Ration Card, School Study Certificate, Date of Birth Certificate, and take necessary action thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. ii) In the event that Respondent No. 4 comes to the conclusion that the age of the Petitioner is as claimed by the Petitioner, Respondent No. 4 is directed to reengage the Petitioner as a public health worker. iii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 09.12.2025 eha 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 33471/2025 Dt. 09.12.2025 eha