Lisa Gill, CJ.

1. Prayer in this writ petition reads as under:

“to issue appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.430 Education, (E.E.I) dated 31.12.1992 and consequential impugned orders of the Commissioner and Director of School Education Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Proceedings No.348/H2/2002, dated 29.04.2002, the District Educational Officer, Nellore Proceedings No.1140/A7/2002, dated 14.06.2002, the Collector and District Magistrate Nellore, Lr.L.Dis.G2.2040/2002, dated 02.04.2002 addressed to the Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice, Article 16 of the Constitution and Public Policy set aside the same in the interest of justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to alter the date of birth of the petitioner as 24.12.1976 instead of 14.06.75…”

2. Writ petitioner is essentially aggrieved of refusal of authorities to change his date of birth. It is submitted that petitioner was born on 24.12.1976 at G.M. Hospital, Nellore. Said hospital authorities intimated his date of birth to be 24.12.1976 to Registrar of Births and Deaths. However, at the time of his admission into Special Municipal Elementary School, Narsinga Rao Pet, Gudur in the year 1981, his date of birth was entered as 14.06.1975. Petitioner completed his SSC from G.S.R. Municipal High School, Gudur on 13.06.1991 and date of birth on his SSC Certificate was entered as 14.06.1975 on the basis of entry at the time of his admission to school. It is the case of petitioner that it was in the year 2002 that it came to his notice for the first time that his date of birth was not 14.06.1975, but 24.12.1976 and that date of birth reflected in school records and subsequently in SSC Certificate was incorrect. He applied to municipal authorities for issuance of birth certificate, upon which a certificate under Section 12/17 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act was issued, certifying his date of birth to be 24.12.1976.

3. Petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation dated 25.02.2002, before District Educational Officer, requesting for rectification of an incorrect entry made in his SSC Certificate. District Educational Officer, Nellore, addressed letter to Head Master, G.S.R. Municipal High School, Gudur, who replied that date of birth of petitioner was entered as 14.06.1975 in the Elementary School at Gudur, which had been accepted by petitioner’s father and recorded in application form of admission and there was no mistake on the part of educational institution. A photocopy of admission form submitted by petitioner’s father was attached.

4. District Collector, Nellore, vide his communication addressed to Commissioner and Director of School Education, Hyderabad, stated that as per instructions issued in A.P. G.O.Ms.No.430, Education (E.E.I) Department, dated 31.12.1992, no application for correction/ alteration shall be entertained after a period of three years from date of completion of the said course. Petitioner, it is further stated, had applied for alteration of his date of birth after 10 years; thus, his claim was time-barred. Petitioner’s case was referred to District Collector for causing enquiry through M.R.O., but the District Collector, without causing any enquiry, mechanically, arbitrarily and illegally informed him that request itself was time-barred. An enquiry was required to have been conducted into the genuineness of petitioner’s complaint.

5. Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 23.02.1988, had delegated powers to Director of School Education to effect corrections of date of birth in a completed School Leaving Certificate based on unimpeachable evidence. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.170 Education (EE) Department dated 30.04.1991, Government empowered Director of School Education to entertain and effect corrections in respect of applications for correction of date of birth in a completed Secondary School Leaving Certificate, Higher Secondary Certificate, Higher Secondary (Multi-purpose) Certificates, even though such applications were made after three years from completion of said course. It is submitted that in an absolutely illogical manner, without any basis, G.O.Ms.No.430 Education (E.E.I) Department dated 31.12.1992 was issued, restricting consideration of applications for correction/ alteration of date of birth in completed Secondary School Leaving Certificate etc. to three years. Hence, aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed. Present Writ Petition was admitted vide order dated 06.01.2004.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 31.12.1992 is liable to be set aside as there is no rational basis or nexus with the object to be achieved; in case there is a genuine case, consideration thereof should not be barred merely by afflux of time. Moreover, in present case when petitioner had filed for correction of his date of birth, he was not yet employed and was appointed as a lecturer in the year 2005. If his date of birth was incorrectly recorded by his father, petitioner should not be held responsible for the same, keeping in view the fact that there is a specific birth certificate issued by competent authority, indicating petitioner’s date of birth as 24.12.1976 and not 14.06.1975. It was thus prayed that writ petition be allowed as prayed for.

7. Learned Government Pleader for School Education, Mr. Gurram Ramachandra Rao, appearing for respondents, has vehemently opposed this petition while submitting that there is no ground whatsoever for setting aside G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 31.12.1992. Admittedly, vide G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 23.02.1988, Director of School Education was empowered to effect corrections in respect of date of birth in a completed School Leaving Certificate wherever a court judgment/ decree is involved and also Collector’s report wherein recommendations were made based on unimpeachable evidence. Director of School Education was empowered to effect changes relating to surname where appointments on compassionate or medical grounds were involved. District Educational Officers were empowered to effect corrections in respect of all clerical mistakes in all school records, as well as in completed School Leaving Certificate.

8. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 31.12.1992 was issued with a specific amendment that no application for such correction/ alteration of date of birth in a completed School Leaving Certificate/H.S.C/H.S.(M)C/S.S.C. shall be entertained after a period of three years from date of completion of said course. It is specifically mentioned in order dated 31.12.1992 that it was noted by Government that number of representations were being received by Director of School Education for correction/ alteration of date of birth after a lapse of several years post-completion of S.S.C. It was observed that individuals were registering and re-registering dates of birth of their present choice in the Births and Deaths Registers maintained by Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Revenue Authorities, leading to changing and tampering of school records, making it practically difficult to verify bona fides of such requests. It is on this count that G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 31.12.1992 was passed.

9. Learned counsel for respondents further points out that as per prescribed norms, a student should have completed 5+ years of age by 31st of August of that academic year for admission into 1st class. Therefore, petitioner should have completed 6+ years of age for admission into 2nd Class, whereas he was admitted to 2nd class in Special Municipal Elementary School, Narasingraopet, Gudur on 14.06.1982 during the academic year 1982-83. Whereby, he should have completed 6+ years of age by 31st of August, 1982. In case date of birth of petitioner as per his claim is accepted to be 24.12.1976, he would not have even completed 6 years of age by the relevant date and would have been ineligible for admission into 2nd class during academic year 1982-83. It is also pointed out that birth certificate issued by Health Officer, Nellore Municipality, is dated 22.02.2002. It is further submitted that petitioner’s parent is literate and the reason being set forth appears to be concocted. Dismissal of writ petition is sought.

10. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file with their able assistance.

11. It is a matter of record that date of birth of petitioner was registered as 14.06.1975 at the time of his admission into Special Municipal Elementary School in the year 1981. He completed his S.S.C. on 13.06.1991 and his date of birth on his SSC certificate is also reflected as 14.06.1975. It is petitioner’s case that he came to know in the year 2002 that his actual date of birth was 24.12.1976. On a pointed query to learned counsel for petitioner as to how he came to know after such long years, given that there is no such detail in the pleadings before us, learned counsel submitted that he was informed by an uncle, though exact relationship could not be revealed. It appears extremely farfetched that petitioner’s father, who is accepted to be a literate person, would not have revealed such an important fact or not taken steps for correction of date of birth even after petitioner completed his S.S.C. on 13.06.1991, leaving petitioner in the dark who statedly filed present writ petition when he was admittedly 27 years old on the premise that he was told about his correct date of birth by an uncle at that stage.

12. It is pertinent to note that change in date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right and has to be in tune with applicable provisions. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any ground whatsoever, which calls for setting aside of G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 31.12.1992. Prescription of time limit, vide G.O.Ms.No.430 dated 31.12.1992, is based on a rational nexus with the object to be achieved.

13. We do not find any merit in argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner that claim raised by petitioner after almost 11 years of completing his S.S.C., for a change in date of birth, should be entertained. Plea that he was only a student aged 27 at the time of filing writ petition and therefore, had nothing to gain as such is clearly devoid of merit. If such an argument were accepted and taken to its logical conclusion, a situation might arise where a candidate is able to take advantage of a particular age being recorded at the time of admission in elementary school and thereafter seek correction at a later stage to gain an advantage in employment.

14. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any ground whatsoever which calls for interference in this writ petition.

15. No other argument was addressed.

16. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.

No costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.