Chief Medical Officer v. Khadeer Khadri .

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent entered service on 15-11-1951 and furnished his date of birth as 14-1-1933, which was recorded in the service register. In 1991, he made a representation to the Corporation asserting that his actual date of birth was 15-7-1934 and sought correction of the service record; the request was rejected. He then filed OA No. 48263 of 1991 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. By order dated 8-10-1993, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed correction of the date of birth. The present matter arose as an appeal by special leave against that order; the court also records that delay was condoned and leave granted.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the respondent was entitled, under sub-rule (5) of Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employees (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984, to correction of his recorded date of birth on the basis that it was a bona fide mistake.
2. Whether the respondent’s request made in 1991 for correction of a date of birth recorded in 1951 was barred by the rules prescribing an application within three years from entry into service, and whether the belated request could be treated as bona fide.
3. Whether the Administrative Tribunal erred in directing correction of the respondent’s date of birth without considering the limitation framework and the bona fides of the claimed mistake.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that sub-rule (5) of Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employees (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 provides a power to correct a bona fide mistake in recording date of birth. However, it held that the respondent’s case did not fall within that category.

The court reasoned that the date of birth was provided by the respondent himself and recorded in the service register in 1951; in these circumstances, the court found it could not be characterised as a clerical mistake, nor as a bona fide mistake in recording. The respondent’s assertion that he discovered the error only in 1991 was treated as a “ruse” to circumvent the limitation bar applicable to such correction requests.

The court emphasised that the applicable rules prescribed a procedure requiring an application for correction to be made within three years from the date of entering service. It also noted that executive instructions on correction of date of birth existed in 1976, and these were later replaced by the statutory rules of 1984, which also prescribed the procedure. According to the court, the respondent failed to avail himself of the opportunity to seek correction when it was available to him (including when the executive instructions and later the statutory rules applied). This, in the court’s view, showed that the later attempt was not bona fide but was designed to secure an advantage after the limitation bar had set in.

On this basis, the court concluded that the Tribunal had not properly considered the matter from the perspective of the limitation framework and the bona fides of the claimed mistake, and therefore its direction to correct the date of birth could not stand.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED; the respondent’s OA (OA No. 48263 of 1991) was DISMISSED; no costs were awarded.

The direct effect of the decision is that the Tribunal’s order directing correction of the respondent’s date of birth was set aside, and the respondent did not obtain alteration of his service-recorded date of birth. The opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond this disposition, and it does not indicate that any new precedent was set.