IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURTS : HYDERABAD
Friday, the 10th day of JULY, 2015
Present: Sri Y.ARAVIND REDDY,B.Sc.,LL.B.,
II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
A.S.No.112 of 2012
Between:
Smt. Singamsetty Vijayakumari... Appellant
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Director of School Education, Lakdikapool, Beside Telephone Bhavan, HYDERABAD.
2. Board of Secondary Education, Represented by Secretary, Chapel Road, Nampally, Hyderabad
3. The District Education Officer Krishna District, Machilipatnam.
4. The Head Mistress, Bishop Azaraiah High School for Girls, Near All India Radio,
Punnamma Thota, Vijayawada.... Respondents
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09062011 PASSED BY THE III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT
AT HYDERABAD
INO.S.No.4131 of 2009
Between:
Smt. Singamsetty Vijayakumari... Appellant
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Director of School Education, Lakdikapool, Beside Telephone Bhavan, HYDERABAD.
2. Board of Secondary Education, Represented by Secretary, Chapel Road, Nampally, Hyderabad
Page 2AS11212Dcln
3. The District Education Officer Krishna District, Machilipatnam.
4. The Head Mistress, Bishop Azaraiah High School for Girls, Near All India Radio,
Punnamma Thota, Vijayawada.... Respondents
This Appeal Suit coming for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri D.Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant, and of Sri P.Shiv Kumar Dass, Government Pleader for the Respon dents 1 to 4, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this
Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1)The appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the Judgment and
Decree dated 962011 in O.S.No.4131/2009 on the file of the III
Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed by the appellant seeking the relief of declaration of her date of birth as 1471965 filed this appeal and the brief facts in the plaint are as follows:–
2)The plaintiff joined in the Bishop Azaraiah High School for Girls, Punnamathota, Vijayawada and passed Secondary School
Examination (X Class) vide registration No.092173 in the month of
March 1980 and subsequently, the plaintiff studied Intermediate and
B.L. Degree Course and completed B.L. Degree course in the year 1994.
The plaintiff submits that in the Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad under
Page 3AS11212Dcln the seal and signature of defendant No.3 her date of birth is noted as 2051964 and the plaintiff believing the same to be her correct date of birth, mentioned her date of birth as 2051964 in all her applications submitted for Intermediate and B.L. Courses. Thereafter the plaintiff has set up practice as Advocate in the year 1995 and she was appointed as Assistant Government Pleader of City civil Courts, Hyderabad. The plaintiff submits that her father Singamsetty Kutumba Rao in the month of June, 1999 at the time of verifying the old documents of title to the properties found a 'Lagnapatrika' showing that his marriage was performed with his wife Venkatratnam on 1651964 and immediately, he informed the same to the plaintiff that she was born on 1471965 and not on 2051964 as recorded in her Secondary School Certificate.
Thereafter the plaintiff caused further enquiries and came to know that her father Singamsetty Kutumba Rao was born on 1531943 and her mother was born in the month of September 1949. Then the plaintiff applied for issuance of birth registration certificate to Gram Panchayat,
Vuyyuru where she was born and the Gram Panchayat, Vuyyuru issued certificate that the plaintiff was born on 1471965 at G.S.M. Hospital,
Vuyyuru. Thus the records indicate that the plaintiff was born on 147 1965 and not on 2051964 and accordingly, her date of birth was
Page 4AS11212Dcln wrongly mentioned in the Secondary School Certificate as 2051965 and then she filed an application to the defendant No.1 through the second defendant seeking correction of her date of birth in the
Secondary School Certificate and in other certificates through her representation dated 3061999 along with the original records and the
Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna at Machilipatnam addressed a letter forwarding his remarks/recommendations to the first defendant for taking further action in the matter in the month of May 2001 and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada Urban and Mandal Revenue
Officer of Vuyyuru also submitted detailed reports to the Collector and
District Magistrate, Krishna at Machilipatnam and accordingly the plain tiff addressed a letter to the defendants on 1132004 requesting the defendants to pass appropriate orders and to take necessary steps for alteration of her date of birth as requested and attended the enquiry conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer at Vijayawada on 982004 and inspite of it there was no communication received by her from the defendants for alteration of her date of birth as requested. The plain tiff submits that she intends to obtain passport in near future as she is planning to go to abroad and she is required to submit her birth regis tration certificate by mentioning her correct date of birth in the pass
Page 5AS11212Dcln port application. She submits that any mistake regarding mentioning the date of birth of the plaintiff will render the passport of plaintiff as invalid document and it is impossible to correct the entries in the pass port and therefore, the plaintiff after issuing notice under Section 80
CPC dated 2352009, filed the suit for declaration of her date of birth
as 1471965 instead of 2051964 and also to direct the defendants to
enter her correct date of birth in the records and prayed to pass decree accordingly.
3)The defendant No.1 denied the averments in the plaint and filed written statement as follows:–
He submits that the plaintiff has submitted her proposals for alteration of her date of birth to the Collector and District Magistrate,
Krishna District vide letter R.C.No.12/D2/2000 dated 30102000 and the District Collector and Magistrate, Krishna District, Machilipatnam has returned the proposals vide letter L.Dis.No.(C5)868/M/2001 dated 4112004 duly stating that the Commissioner and Director of School
Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has informed in his letter RC.
No.1057/H1/04 dated 13121992, the candidate should submit her proposals for alteration of date of birth within three years from the date
Page 6AS11212Dcln of completion of her SSC. He submits that the individual has passed
SSC in the year 1980 and applied for alteration of her date of birth in the Secondary School Certificate on 452001 i.e., after lapse of a period of 21 years and hence, it is belated and cannot be considered. As such, alteration of date of birth of the plaintiff does not arise as per the rules in force. He submits that the Board of Secondary Education is an examination conducting body and after issuing of notification, the
Head Master of the concerned school will submit the application form along with the manuscript nominal roll and fee receipt (challan), in respect of the candidates appearing for the examination and the manu script nominal roll will contain the name of the candidate, father's name, date of birth, sex, subjects offered and medium of instruction as recorded in the admission register and thereafter the candidates who are admitted to the exam will be issued hall tickets based on the particulars contained in the manuscript nominal roll. He submits that the Chief Superintendent will be supplied with the printed nominal rolls well ahead of the conduct of the examination for ensuring that all the particulars are printed correctly as written in the manuscript nominal roll. He submits that the Head Master is authorised to propose correc tions in the printed nominal rolls and they will be carried out and per
Page 7AS11212Dcln manent record will be maintained in respect of the candidates who are registered for the examinations irrespective of the results. He submits that as per the Rules framed in the G.O.Ms.No. 1263 Education Depart ment dated 611961 at Sec. C and G.O.Ms.No. 430 (EE.I) Department
dated 31121992, no application shall be entertained by any Officer
of the Education Department in respect of correction of entries relating to name, father's name, caste, religion etc. in the Secondary School
Certificate or Higher Secondary School Certificates unless it be for the correction of obviously absurd entries or clerical mistakes committed in the School or in the office records of the Education Department. He submits that as per the G.O.Ms.No.604 Education (K) Department
dated 2341977, the Commissioner for Government Examinations is
authorised to make minor corrections in completed Secondary School
Certificate such as spelling mistakes etc., excluding corrections regard ing caste and date of birth etc. He submits that the plaintiff joined in
VI Standard in Bishop Azaraiah High School, Punnami Thota, Vijaya wada and at that time, the plaintiff's father has produced a declaration of date of birth of the plaintiff as 2051964 which was certified by the
Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Vijayawada and basing on the said records, the plaintiff's name and date of birth were entered
Page 8AS11212Dcln in the SSC records. He submits that the entries made in the Secondary
School Certificate of the plaintiff are made as per the manuscript nominal roll submitted for the SSC examinations by the Head Master concerned. He submits that the plaintiff has stated that she has appeared for the examination in March 1980 and assuming without admitting if the date of birth of the plaintiff is 1471965 is correct, the plaintiff will become under aged and in such case she would not have been allowed to take the very examination as per the Andhra Pradesh
Education Rules and hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4)Defendants 2 and 3 filed memo adopting the written state ment filed by defendant No.1.
5)Defendant No.4 denied the averments in the plaint and filed written statement as follows:– Defendant No.4 submits that the plain tiff has studied in the school of defendant No.4 upto X Class. Defen dant No.4 submits that the date of birth of the plaintiff by name Vijaya
Kumari was mentioned by her father as 2051964 in the admission form and birth declaration form at the time of joining in VI Class in the month of June, 1974. As such, the same date of birth was entered in her Secondary School Certificate and Transfer Certificate. It submits
Page 9AS11212Dcln that the 'Lagna Patrika' and issuance of birth certificate by Gram
Panchayat, Vuyyuru and other contents of the plaint are not within the knowledge of the fourth defendant and hence, they are denied. It submits that the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna at Machili patnam have returned the proposals of Singamsetti Vijaya Kumari in
L.Ds(C5)868/M/2001 dated 4112004 wherein it is mentioned that the Commissioner and Director of School Education (EE.I) Department
dated 13121992, the candidate should submit her proposals for
alteration of date of birth in SSC within three years from the date of completion of SSC and whereas she has passed the SSC in the year 1980 but applied for alteration of date of birth on 452001 i.e., after lapse of 21 years and hence, it is a belated case and cannot be con sidered and the same was informed to the plaintiff vide letter dated 1122004 of the Head Mistress, Bishop Azaraiah High School along with the Collector's letter and accordingly, the plaintiff has taken all her original certificates on 1942005 and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
6)On the pleadings of both parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:–
Page 10AS11212Dcln
1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration of date of birth as 1471965?
2) Whether defendants can be directed to rectify the same in their records?
3) To what relief?
7)During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff PWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs A1 to A15 are marked. On behalf of the defendants DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs B1 to B12 are marked.
8)After hearing both the counsels and considering the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the present appeal on the following grounds.
9)The Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.4131/ 2009 is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. The appellant submits that the trial
Court erred in dismissing the suit though the appellant/plaintiff esta blished that her correct date of birth is 1471965 and the Judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. The appellant submits that the trial Court erred in not accepting Ex A3, birth certificate issued by
Gram Panchayat and erroneously concluded Ex A3 as not proved in accordance with law. The appellant submits that as per the provisions
Page 11AS11212Dcln of Gram Panchayat Act, Gram Panchayat alone is competent to register the birth of a child and accordingly, Ex A3 was issued on the basis of the intimation sent from the hospital authorities. The appellant sub mits that Ex B3 will not come as an obstacle for the appellant to seek the relief of declaration regarding correction of date of birth. But the trial Court erred in relying on Ex B5, which is not binding on the plaintiff since Ex A3 prevails and establish the correct date of birth of the plaintiff/appellant. The appellant submits that the trial Court has not followed the decision of the High Court reported in 2010 (4) ALD (DB) and the principles laid down in the said decision squarely apply to the facts of the case. Further the appellant submits that G.Os. marked as Exs B2 and B3 will not disentitle the plaintiff to seek the relief of declaration of her date of birth and hence, prayed to set aside the
Judgment and Decree and allow the appeal by passing decree in favour of the appellant.
10)Now the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the Judgment and Decree dated 962011 passed in O.S.No.4131/2009 by the III Junior Civil
Page 12AS11212Dcln
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is sustainable or
liable to be set aside?
11)For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant/s' as they arrayed in the suit.
12)P O I N T: The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the plaintiff/appellant is the first daughter of Singamsetty Kutumba
Rao and Singamsetty Venkatratnam and the plaintiff has got two more sisters by name Lakshmi Kumari and Usha Kumari and it is argued that the plaintiff joined in Bishop Azaraiah High School of Girls, Punnama thota, Vijayawada and passed secondary school examination vide regis tration No.092173 in the month of March 1980 and subsequently she has studied Intermediate and B.L. Degree course in the year 1994. It is argued that in the SSC certificate issued by the Board of Secondary
Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad under the seal and signature of defendant No.3 the date of birth of the plaintiff is noted as 2051964 and that the plaintiff believed that the date of birth as recorded in SSC certificate is her correct date of birth and accordingly, she has men tioned her date of birth as 2051964 in all her applications submitted for Intermediate and B.L. courses. It is argued that after the plaintiff
Page 13AS11212Dcln has passed B.L. course, she has set up her practice in the year 1995 and she was appointed as Assistant Government Pleader in the City Civil
Courts, Hyderabad. The learned counsel argued that the father of the plaintiff Sri Singamsetty Kutumba Rao some time in the month of June 1999 at the time of verifying the old documents of title for the pro perties found a 'Lagnapatrika' showing that his marriage was performed with his wife Venkataratnam on 1651964. Immediately, the plaintiff's father informed the same to the plaintiff in the first week of 1999 that the plaintiff was born on 1471965 but not on 2051964 as recorded in S.S.C. certificate of the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff noticed that her date of birth noted as 2051964 is a wrong date of birth on the face of it and made further enquiries and came to know that her father was born on 1531943 and her mother was born in the month of
September 1949 and then the plaintiff also applied for issue of birth registration certificate to Gram Panchayat, Vuyyuru where the plaintiff was born and the Gram Panchayat, Vuyyuru issued certificate that the plaintiff was born on 1471965 and the same is recorded in G.S.M.
Hospital at Vuyyuru. It is argued thereafter the plaintiff submitted an application dated 3061999 to defendant No.1 through defendant No.2
Page 14AS11212Dcln seeking correction of her date of birth in the S.S.C. certificate and in other certificates along with original record and the Collector and the
District Magistrate, Krishna at Machilipatnam addressed a letter for warding his remarks/recommendations to the first defendant for taking further action in the matter in the month of May, 2001 and the Mandal
Revenue Officer of Vijayawada Urban and M.R.O. of Vuyyuru also submitted detailed reports to the Collector and the District Magistrate of Krishna District at Machilipatnam and then the plaintiff addressed a letter to the defendants on 1132004 requesting the defendants to pass appropriate orders and to take necessary steps for alteration of date of birth as requested by her and she also attended the enquiry conducted by M.R.O. at Vijayawada on 982004 and submitted necessary records but the plaintiff has not received any communication from the defen dants for alteration of date of birth as requested by her. But since there was no response, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.4131/2009 seek ing for declaration of her date of birth as 1471965 and filed Exs A1 to A15, and inspite of it, the trial Court dismissed the suit with false presumptions and assumptions, vide its judgment and decree dated 9 62009. The learned counsel argued that Ex A1 is Lagnapatrika show
Page 15AS11212Dcln ing the date of marriage of plaintiff's parents as 1651964 and Ex A2 is the birth registration certificate issued by Grama Panchayat, Vuyyuru clearly established that the plaintiff was born on 1471965 and the same is indicating that the plaintiff was born on the said date but not on 2051964 and thus the date of birth of the plaintiff is wrongly mentioned in SSC certificate as 2051964 though she was actually born on 1471965. The learned counsel argued that the plaintiff intends to obtain passport in near future as she is planning to go to abroad and in order to obtain passport she is required to submit her date of birth certificate and is required to mention her correct date of birth in the passport application and any mistake regarding mentioning date of birth of the plaintiff will render the passport as invalid docu ment and it is almost impossible to correct the entries in the passport.
The learned counsel argued that as the defendants did not comply with the demands of the plaintiff, in the notice dated 2352009 even after waiting for two months, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking the relief of declaration to declare her date of birth as 147 1965 but not as 2051964. The learned counsel argued that till first week of June, 1999 the plaintiff had no knowledge about her correct
Page 16AS11212Dcln date of birth and that she was under the impression that the date of birth noted in SSC certificate as 2051964 is her correct date of birth and hence, for the first time in the month of June 1999 she came to know through her parents that she was born on 1471965 but not on 2051964 and then she caused enquiries to find out her correct date of birth and the Gram Panchayat, Vuyyuru issued certificate giving her correct date of birth and inspite of the plaintiff applying to the defen dants for correcting her correct date of birth, they failed to respond.
The learned counsel argued that the trial Court erred in not accepting
Ex A3, the birth certificate issued by Gram Panchayat and erroneously concluded that Ex A3 is not proved in accordance with law. It is argued that as per the provisions of Gram Panchayat Act, the Gram
Panchayat alone is the competent to register the birth of a child and Ex
A3 was issued on the basis of intimation sent from the hospital autho rities and hence, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of declaration regarding correction date of birth and inspite of the appel lant/plaintiff proved all the necessary documents, the trial Court has not followed the decision reported in 2010 (4) ALD DB and the princi ples laid down in the said decision squarely apply to the facts of the
Page 17AS11212Dcln case. Further the G.Os. marked as Exs B2 and B3 do not disentitle the plaintiff to seek the relief of correction of her date of birth and inspite of it, the trial Court dismissed the suit which is not correct and prayed to set aside the said judgment by granting decree as prayed for.
13)Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents/defen dants argued that the Board of Secondary Education is an examination conducting body and after issuing the notification, the Head Master concerned will submit the application form along with manuscript nominal roll and fee receipt in respect of the candidates who are being presented to take the examinations. It is argued that the manuscript nominal roll will contain name, father name, date of birth, sex code, subjects offered, medium of instruction which will be extended by him as recorded in the admission register and the candidates who are ad mitted to the examination will be issued with the Hall Tickets based on the particulars contained in the manuscript nominal roll only. The learned counsel argued that the Head Master will be supplied with the printed nominal rolls well ahead of the conduct of exams with a request to ensure that all particulars are printed correctly as written in the manuscript nominal roll by the Head Master. The learned counsel
Page 18AS11212Dcln argued that the plaintiff has appeared for the SSC Exams through
Bishop Azaraiah High School for Girls, Punnamma Thota, Vijayawada as a candidate and she passed the SSC Exam with Roll No.092173 in the month of March, 1980. It is argued that the date of birth of the plaintiff is entered as 2051964 as per the manuscript nominal roll submitted by the Head Master concerned. The learned counsel argued that the Rules are clear on the subject of alteration of date of birth in
G.O.Ms.No.430 Education (EE1) dated 31121992 and as per the
Government orders, the Director of School Education is the competent authority and not the Board of Secondary Education. The learned counsel argued Rule 11 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1263/ Educa tion dated 651961 as subsequently amended the following shall be substituted namely.
“The Director of School Education is empowered to entertain and affect correction of alterations in respect of the applications for correction or alterations of the date of birth in the completed SSLC/HSC/HS(M)C/SSC. How ever no application for such correction/alteration of date of birth in the said completed certificates shall be enter tained after a period of three years from the date of com pletion of the said courses.”.
Page 19AS11212Dcln
The learned counsel argued that as per the G.O.Ms.No.604 Education
(k) Department dated 2341977, the Government after careful exami nation, approve the proposal and hereby authorise the Commissioner for Government Examinations to make minor corrections in the com pleted SSCs such as spelling mistake etc., excluding correction regard ing caste and date of birth, which will be done at the Government level.
The learned counsel argued that as per the orders contained in G.O.
Ms.No.604, Commissioner for Government Examinations is authorised to make minor corrections only in the completed SSC's such as spelling mistakes, excluding corrections regarding caste and date of birth, whereas the request of the plaintiff does not fall under the category of absurd entry or clerical mistake and it relates to date of birth and hence, the competent authority to order for correction of date of birth is the Director of School Education and not the Board of Secondary
Education and hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel argued that the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad has rightly dismissed the suit in O.S.No.4131/2009, after going through the entire material on record i.e., oral and docu mentary evidence filed by both parties. The learned counsel argued that the appellant/plaintiff has created the 'Lagnapatrika' on the certi
Page 20AS11212Dcln ficate issued from the Gram Panchayat and further since the appellant has come forward with the application for correction of date of birth beyond three years, the claim as made by the appellant is barred by limitation and hence, the appellant is not entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
14)The plaintiff who is examined as PW.1 in her evidence deposed that she has joined in Bishop Azaraiah High School for Girls,
Punnamathota, Vijayawada and passed Secondary School Examination vide registration No.092173 in the month of March 1980. Subsequently, she studied Intermediate and completed B.L. Degree course in the year 1994. She deposed that in her Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad under the seal and signature of defendant No.2 her date of birth is noted as 2051964 and she believed the said date of birth is correct and accord ingly she mentioned her date of birth as 2051964 in all her applica tions for further studies. She deposed that in June 1999 her father
Singamsetty Kutumba Rao verified the old documents of title to the properties and found a 'Lagnapatrika' showing that his marriage was performed with his wife Venkatratnam on 1651964 and she filed Ex
Page 21AS11212Dcln
A1 the said Lagnapatrika and then her father informed the same fact to her stating that she was born on 1471965 but not on 2051964 as recorded in her Secondary School Certificate and then she applied for birth registration certificate to Gram Panchayat, Vuyyuru where she was born and the said Gram Panchayat issued certificate that she was born on 1471965 at G.S.M. Hospital at Vuyyuru and filed Ex A3.
Then she submitted an application dated 3061999 to defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 seeking correction of her date of birth in her
Secondary School Certificate and in other certificates and the office copy of the said representation is marked as Ex A4 and the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District at Machilipatnam addressed a letter forwarding his remarks/recommendations to the first defendant for taking further action in the matter in the month of May 2001 and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada Urban and Mandal Revenue
Officer of Vuyyuru also submitted detailed reports to the Collector and
District Magistrate at Machilipatnam and she addressed a letter to the defendants on 1132004 requesting the defendants to pass appropriate orders and to take necessary steps for alteration of her date of birth as requested and attended the enquiry conducted by the Mandal Revenue
Officer at Vijayawada on 982004 and submitted necessary records
Page 22AS11212Dcln during the course of enquiry before the concerned authorities but she has not received any communication from the defendants. She depo sed that she intends to obtain passport in near future as she is planning to go to abroad and in order to obtain passport it is required to submit her birth registration certificate by mentioning her correct date of birth in the passport application and any mistake in mentioning her correct date of birth will render the passport an invalid document and it is almost impossible to correct the entries in the passport and after issuing due notice under Section 80 C.P.C. she filed the suit. She also filed Ex
A2 her original Secondary School Certificate wherein her date of birth is recorded as 2051964. She also filed Ex A5 the proceedings of the
District Educational Officer, Krishna District at Machilipatnam dated 2552000 wherein the District Educational Officer requested the Deputy
Educational OfficerI, Vijayawada to provide the original admission application, original record sheet and extract of nominal roll of PW.1.
Ex A6 is the letter addressed by the District Educational Officer,
Krishna, Machilipatnam dated 3052001 addressed to the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna, Machilipatnam requesting to forward the proposal to the Commissioner and Director of School Education with specific remarks for taking further course of action in the matter
Page 23AS11212Dcln and Ex A7 is the letter by the Collector and District Magistrate addres sed to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada (Urban) and Vuyyuru to conduct discrete enquiry and send detailed report in the matter through the Divisional Officer for taking further action. Ex A8 is the letter of the plaintiff addressed to the defendants dated 1132004. Ex
A9 is the proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of School
Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 3042004 addressed to the District Educational Officer, Krishna at Machilipatnam requesting him to obtain and submit necessary proposals as per G.O.Ms.No.1348
Education dated 15121981 for alteration of date of birth in SSC. Ex
A10 is the Memo of Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada (Urban) addressed to the plaintiff asking her to attend for enquiry on 982004.
Ex A11 is the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants.
15)The plaintiff also examined her father S.Kutumba Rao as
PW.2 who deposed that the plaintiff was born on 1471965 but how ever, by oversight in the school records her date of birth is mentioned
as 2051964. He deposed that his marriage with Venkata Ratnam,
who is mother of the plaintiff took place on 1651964 and the plaintiff was born fourteen months after their marriage. He deposed in June
Page 24AS11212Dcln 1999 when he was verifying old documents of title, he found 'Lagna patrika' dated 1651964 showing that his marriage was performed on 1651964 and immediately he informed the plaintiff in the first week of June 1999 that she was born on 1471965 but not on 2051964 as recorded in the Secondary School Certificate of the plaintiff and then the plaintiff made necessary enquiries and obtained the date of birth certificate from the Gram Panchayat, Vuyyuru to the effect that she was born on 1471965 at GSM Hospital at Vuyyuru.
16)The defendants examined one Kumar RSR Thutey, the
Deputy Inspector of Schools at Vijayawada as DW.1 who deposed that the plaintiff has submitted her proposals for alteration of date of birth to the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District vide letter dated Rc.No.12/D 2/2000 dated 30102000 and the District Collector has returned the proposals vide letter Dis.No.(C5)868/M/2001 dated 4112004 duly stating that the Commissioner and Director of School
Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has informed in his letter Rc.
No.1057/H1/04 dated 13121992 the candidate should submit her proposals for alteration of date of birth in the Secondary School Certi ficate within three years from the date of completion of her SSC and
Page 25AS11212Dcln though the plaintiff has passed the SSC examination in the year 1980 she applied for alteration of date of birth in SSC on 452001 i.e., after lapse of a period of 21 years which is belated one and cannot be considered. He deposed that the Board of Secondary Education is an examination conducting body and after issuing of notification, the
Head Master of the concerned school will submit the application form along with the manuscript nominal roll and fee receipt in respect of the candidates appearing for the examination and the manuscript nominal roll will contain the name of the candidate, father's name, date of birth, sex, subjects offered and medium of instruction as recorded in the admission register and the candidates who are admitted to the exam will be issued halltickets basing on the particulars contained in the manuscript nominal roll and the Chief Superintendent will be supplied with the printed nominal rolls well ahead of the conduct of the exami nation for ensuring all the particulars are printed correctly as written in the manuscript nominal roll and the Head Master is authorised to pro pose corrections in the printed nominal rolls and they will be carried out and permanent record will be maintained in respect of the candi dates who are registered for the examinations irrespective of the results. He deposed that as per G.O.Ms.No.1263 Education Department
Page 26AS11212Dcln
dated 611961 at Sec. C and G.O.Ms.No.43 (EEI) Department dated
31121992 no application shall be entertained by any Officer of the
Education Department in respect of correction of entries relating to name, father's name, caste, religion, etc. in Secondary School Certifi cate or Higher Secondary (Multipurpose) Certificates unless it be for the correction of obviously absurd entries or clerical mistakes commit ted in the school or the office records of the Education Department. He deposed that as per G.O.Ms.No.604 Education (K) Department dated 2341977, the Commissioner for Government Examinations is autho rised to make minor corrections in completed SSC such as spelling mistakes etc., excluding corrections regarding caste and date of birth, etc. He deposed that the plaintiff joined in VI standard at Bishop
Azaraiah High School, Punnama Thota, Vijayawada and that at the time of joining, the plaintiff's father has produced the declaration of the date of birth of the plaintiff as 2051964 which is certified by the Civil
Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Vijayawada and basing on the said records, the plaintiff's name and date of birth were entered in the
SSC Records. He deposed that the entries made in the Secondary
School Certificate of the plaintiff are made as per the manuscript nominal roll submitted for the SSC examinations by the Head Master
Page 27AS11212Dcln concerned.
17)The defendants also examined the concerned District
Educational Officer, Krishna, Machilipatnam as DW.2 who also deposed in the same lines as that of DW.1.
18)The defendants in support of the oral evidence filed Ex B1 the copy of the application form of the plaintiff issued from Bishop
Azaraiah High School For Girls, Vijayawada wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 2051964 which bears signatures of PW.2. Ex B2 is the copy of the G.O.Ms.No.1263 dated 651961 wherein there is a clause for the correction of date of birth or age on receipt of application with the documents mentioned in Cl.(a) to (d) of Rule 3, and the Head of the School shall after enclosing the documents in original mentioned submit it immediately to the Director of Public Instruction through the
District Educational Officer concerned and the Director shall forward it to the Collector of the District in which the applicant was born for enquiry and report and the Collector shall cause a detailed enquiry to be conducted and shall have the facts of the case verified and investi gated and submit his recommendations along with the record of en quiry in original and on receipt of the Collector's report together with
Page 28AS11212Dcln the original record of enquiry, the Director of Public Instruction shall submit them to the Education Department for orders. Further there is a mention in the said G.O. that no application for correction of date of birth in the school records shall ordinarily be entertained after a period of two years from the date of admission to the school, departure being made only in very exceptional cases where there is unimpeachable evidence and the delay in preferring the application is satisfactorily explained. Ex B3 is the copy of the G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 31121992 according to which the Director of School Education is empowered to entertain and effect corrections or alterations in respect of the appli cations for corrections or alteration of the date of birth in completed
SSLC/HSC/BS (M) C/SSC, but however, no application for such correc tion/alteration of date of birth in the said completed certificate shall be entertained after a period of three years from the date of completion of the said course. Ex B4 is the letter from the Head Mistress, Bishop
Azaraiah High School for Girls, Vijayawada addressed to the District
Educational Officer, Krishna at Machilipatnam to the effect that since the plaintiff has submitted application after 21 years of passing of SSC examination, her request for correction of date of birth cannot be considered and the same is informed to the plaintiff by returning her
Page 29AS11212Dcln original documents on 1942005. Ex B5 is the declaration given by the plaintiff's father to the effect that plaintiff's date of birth is 205 1964 and the same is attested by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Govern ment Hospital, Vijayawada. Ex B8 is the copy of the nominal roll wherein the date of birth of the plaintiff is recorded as 2051964. Ex
B10 is the copy of the G.O.Rt.No.60 Education dated 2341977 according to which the Government authorised the Commissioner for
Government Examinations to make minor corrections in the completed
SSCs such as spelling mistakes etc. excluding corrections regarding caste and date of birth which will be done at the Government level. Ex
B11 is the copy of the Transfer Certificate of the plaintiff wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 2051964 and Ex B12 is the proceedings of the District Collector and Magistrate according to which the plaintiff applied for alteration of date of birth in the SSC on 452001 i.e., after completion of a period of 21 years, and it is a belated case and cannot be considered. Though the oral and documentary evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff has produced the material such as Ex A3 to show that her correct date of birth is 1471965 but not 2051964, but since the plaintiff applied to the Director of School Education,
Hyderabad by her application dated 3061999 for correction of her
Page 30AS11212Dcln date of birth with a delay of 19 years as per the G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 31121992, no application for correction of date of birth in the completed SSC shall be entertained after a period of three years from the date of completion of the said course and accordingly, the defen dants have rightly rejected the request made by the plaintiff for correc tion of her date of birth in her SSC and accordingly, the trial Court rightly discussed the same and dismissed the suit and hence, there are no merits to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the point is decided against the appellant.
19)In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and Decree dated 962011 in O.S.No.4131/2009 passed by the III
Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad are confirmed. Under the circumstances, both parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed
by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 10th day of JULY, 2015.
II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
City Civil Court, Hyderabad