The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment dated March 15, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 36255 of 1998 by which the High Court has directed the Registrar(Administration), High Court of Andhra Pradesh to change the date of birth of the respondent from June 15, 1948 to August 15, 1949 in his service register.
The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:-
The respondent was appointed as District Munsif on August 16, 1976. On February 14, 1978, he made a declaration that his date of birth was June 15, 1948. On August 1, 1979 he made an application to the Chief Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh with a copy to the Registrar, Andhra Pradesh High Court, praying to change his date of birth to August 15, 1949. He did not receive any reply. Therefore, he served a notice dated June 16, 1980 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the State Government calling upon it to change his date of birth. There was no response to the said notice. Therefore, he filed a suit i.e. O.S. No. 302 of 1981 in the Court of learned Principal District Munsif, Nandyal against the State Government for a declaration that his date of birth was August 15, 1949. It may be mentioned here that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not impleaded as a party in the said suit. The suit was contested by the State Government. The learned Judge on appreciation of evidence decreed the suit on March 31, 1982. The respondent thereafter made a representation dated May 20, 1982 requesting the State Government to implement the decree passed by the Civil Court. However, the State Government rejected the said representation by an order dated June 10, 1982. Therefore, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 1156 of 1983 before the High Court. The High Court by an order dated September 3, 1987 directed the State Government to consider the representation made by the respondent as expeditiously as possible and disposed of the petition. In spite of the direction given by the High Court on September 3, 1982 there was no response from the State Government.
Therefore, the respondent filed another writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 17882 of 1989 before the High Court. In the said Writ Petition the State Government as well as the High Court of Andhra Pradesh were impleaded as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. A prayer was made to direct the respondents to implement decree passed in O.S. No. 302 of 1981. The Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated April 13, 1993. The operative portion of the order reads as under :-
"Under these circumstances, the decree passed by the Civil Court has got to be honoured and entries in the service register of the petitioner have got to be made by the respondents stating his date of birth as 15.8.1949. This exercise shall be done by the respondents within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs."
As directed by the High Court, the Government issued G.O.M.S. No. 484 Home, Dept. dated October 30, 1993 changing the date of birth of the respondent from June 15, 1948 to August 15, 1949. However, the High Court represented by the Registrar (Administration) filed Writ Appeal No. 1262 of 1983 against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 17882 of 1989. The appeal filed by the High Court was heard along with another Writ Appeal No. 1127 of 1993. Both the appeals were disposed of by Judgment dated December 17, 1993. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge on April 13, 1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 17882 of 1989. The Division Bench referred to several reported decisions of this Court and of the High Courts and came to conclusion that High Court alone was the competent authority either to enter the date of birth or after the date of birth is recorded in the service register of the members of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service to change the same. The High Court held that the order of the Government dated October 30, 1993 was without any authority of law. It was also observed that the High Court was neither bound by the decree of the Civil Court nor bound by any decision or order issued by the Government. In view of the said conclusions the Division Bench requested the High Court to consider and dispose of the representation of the respondent for change of his date of birth in the service register on the basis of the material available and in accordance with law.
After the disposal of the Writ Appeal No. 1262 of 1993, the High Court on administrative side took up the representation of the respondent along with representations of as many as 24 other judicial officers belonging to the cadres of District Judges, Sub Judges and District Munsifs wherein similar requests were made to change their date of birth. All those representations were placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court on October 15, 1997. The High Court was of the view that there was no substance in the representation of the respondent and therefore, by resolution dated October 15, 1997 rejected the same. The resolution reads as under: -
"CONSIDERED and since it is found that entry in respect of the date of birth in the Service Record has been made on the basis of the representation of the concerned Officer/Officers and materials produced including decrees of Civil Courts do not inspire confidence, resolved that representation for alteration of dates of birth be rejected."
REGISTRAR (Administration)
Sri M. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy,
Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad."
Pursuant to the said resolution the Registrar(Administration) passed an order dated November 13, 1997, which reads as under :-
"Proceedings of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh : Hyderabad
Sub : PUBLIC SERVICES A.P.S.J.S. -
Representation of Sri M. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad - Request for alteration of Date of Birth from 15.6.1948 to 15.8.1949 Considered and rejected.
Read :
1. Application Dis. No. Nil, dt.
1.8.1979 from Sri M. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy.
2 Lr. Dis. No.4930, dated 10.8.1979 from the District Judge, Chittoor.
3 High Court's Lr. Roc No.300/78-B2, dated 25.6.1982."
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 36155 of 1998 which was placed for disposal before Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Jutice S.R. Naik and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Anand Reddy. The Division Bench noticed that the only material placed before the Administrative Committee in its meeting held on October 15, 1997 was the office note prepared by the Registry, which did not deal with the merits of the claim of the respondent nor did the note even refer to many relevant documents produced by the respondent. The Division Bench, therefore, concluded that there was non-application of mind by the Administrative Committee and resolution was liable to be set aside. However, one of the learned Judges was of the view that the petition filed by the respondent should be allowed and High Court should be directed to change the date of birth of the respondent from June 15, 1948 to August 15, 1949 whereas another learned Judge was of the view that the matter should be remitted to the High Court on administrative side for fresh consideration. In view of this difference of opinion about the final directions to be issued, the matter was placed before the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court who referred the matter to the third learned Judge of the High Court. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge agreed with the view expressed by one of the learned Judges of the Division Bench that the High Court should be directed on its administrative side to change the date of birth of the respondent from June 15, 1948 to August 15, 1949 in the service register of the respondent. Accordingly, the direction was issued which has given rise to the instant appeal.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the documents which form part of the instant appeal. The finding recorded by the High Court in the impugned Judgment that the documents produced by the respondent in support of his claim, were of unimpeachable character and the High Court on its administrative side had not stated anything against the authenticity, relevancy and admissibility of the evidence produced by the respondent, could not be challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court. The documents, authenticity of which could not be challenged by the appellant, were (1) extract from the Register of Births dated July 12, 1979, (2) certificate issued by the Head Master of Elementary School (Veldurth), (3) certificate of date of birth issued by High School authorities, (4) certificate issued by Veldurth Gram Panchayat etc. Those documents have been enumerated in detail in the impugned judgment. Three reasons have been given by the High Court as to why final direction to change the date of birth of the respondent as demanded by him should be granted. Those reasons are (1) The resolution of the High Court was not in a speaking order. (2) 22 years' time was already spent in consideration of the representation of the respondent. (3) Nothing was stated by the High Court against the authenticity, relevancy and admissibility of the evidence produced by the respondent. The decision to direct the High Court on its administrative side to correct the date of birth of the respondent and not to remit the question of correction of the date of birth of the respondent to the Administrative Committee for its reconsideration is in consonance with the principles laid down in (1) Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. And others Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1980 SC 1896 and (2) Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others AIR 1987 SC 2381.
The three reasons given by the High Court for not remitting the matter to the High Court on its administrative side cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary so as to warrant interference of this Court in the instant appeal.
Having regard to the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that a just and proper order has been passed by the High Court and the appellant is rightly directed to change the date of birth of the respondent from June 15, 1948 to August 15, 1949. Therefore, this appeal, which lacks merits, deserves to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs.