(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing the Proceedings.No.MD(FAC)/ ARECS/ KSK/ JAO-ADM/ D.No.207/2025, dated 31.12.2025 and unauthorisedly superannuating the petitioner with effect from 31.05.2025, by placing reliance on the date of birth recorded in the S.S.C. Mark List (11.05.1967) instead of the date of birth recorded in the Service Register as 15.11.1969, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Proceedings.No.MD(FAC)/ ARECS/ KSK/ JAO-ADM/ D.No.207/ 2025, dated 31.12.2025 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and continue him with all consequential benefits along with back wages and pass such other orders.

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by suspending the Proceedings.No.MD(FAC)/ ARECS/ KSK/ JAO- ADM/ D.No.207/2025, dated 31.12.2025 of the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of this writ petition and pass such other orders.

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 31.01.2026 passed in W.P.No.2508 of 2026 and dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs in the interest of justice and to pass such other orders.)

1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned Proceedings No.MD (FAC)/ ARECS / KSK/ JAO-ADM/ D.No.207/2025, dated 31.05.2025 superannuating the Petitioner on the basis of date of birth recorded in S.S.C., Mark List and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Helper on contract basis in Respondent No.3-Society on 08.06.1990. Thereafter, the services of the Petitioner were regularized on 01.01.2008 as Junior Lineman. After regularization, the Petitioner was promoted as Lineman in the year 2012 and has been discharging his duties to the best of his abilities. Respondent No.3-Society is a DISCOM and is presently under the control of APEPDCL pursuant to the orders of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission.

3. The date of birth of the Petitioner in his Service Register was recorded as 15.11.1969 on the basis of his Date of Birth Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. While so, on 25.07.2025, a Memo was issued by Respondent No.3 informing the Petitioner that in the discreet enquiry, it came to the notice that the Petitioner’s date of birth is 11.05.1967 and the same was mentioned in S.S.C., Certificate.

4. In response, the Petitioner submitted that the date of birth in S.S.C., Certificate was contrary to the Date of Birth Certificate and a representation was given to the District Educational Officer, Anakapalli on 11.08.2025 and thereafter the same was forwarded to the Director of School Education Department for alteration of date of birth in the S.S.C., Certificate, but said representation was rejected stating that the date of birth cannot be altered. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings on 31.12.2025 superannuating the Petitioner w.e.f. 31.05.2025. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. In the Counter-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.3, it is stated that Respondent No.3-Society is registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and is governed by bye laws. In the Counter-Affidavit, it is stated that the Petitioner’s date of birth entered in his Service Register runs contrary to the S.S.C., Certificate, which was obtained prior to the Petitioner joining the Department and therefore the action of Respondent No.3 need not be interfered with.

6. Heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for Petitioner and Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.3-Society.

7. The S.S.C., Mark List of Petitioner was issued on 10.06.1985 and in the said Mark List the date of birth of the Petitioner is recorded as 11.05.1967. As mentioned above, the petitioner joined in the Respondent society in 1990 and regularized in 2008. A lot of reliance was placed on the Date of Birth Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sabbavaram and the Birth certificate dated 05.09.2009.

8. A close scrutiny of the Date of Birth Certificate was issued on 20.01.2004 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sabbavaram, would reveal that the date of birth was registered as per the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam on 27.12.2003. Till said date, the date of birth was not even registered under the Registration of births and Deaths Act, 1965 and there is no explanation from the petitioner on this aspect. After the advent of the Registration of births and deaths Act, 1969, the date of birth cannot be registered after one year from the date of birth except on an order of a judicial first class magistrate after verifying the correctness. The section 13(3) thereof is extracted below;

                  “13. Delayed registration of births and deaths.—

                  (1) …….

                  (2) …..

                  (3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee.

                  (4) ……

9. In the present case, there is no order of the magistrate of first class certifying the age of the petitioner and in the absence of the same, the registration has no validity. The mandatory nature of the provision is apparent as the provision referred above uses the term “Shall be registered only on an order”. Apart from that, on what basis the petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 15.11.1969 is not forthcoming. Another Birth Certificate was submitted by the petitioner by the authority under the Act and the same is a consequence of the aforesaid proceeding.

10. In general, the entry in the Service Register would not be altered, but in a case of this nature where the entry is based on an invalid birth certificate, the entry in the service register cannot be taken to be absolute. More so, when an authentic S.S.C., Certificate speaks otherwise. It is to be noted that the entry in the S.S.C., Certificate is based on self declaration or a declaration of his guardian.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly dismissed.

12. No order as to costs.

13. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.