(1.) By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 20/9/2019 by which the State has opined that the date of birth of the petitioner should be taken as 16/12/1961 which was reflected in the service book and confirmed by the petitioner and not 16/12/1963 as shown in the School Leaving Certificate.
(2.) Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as an armed Police Constable on 11/2/1983. The School Leaving Certificate at that time showed his date of birth as 16/12/1963. According to the petitioner, by virtue of a clerical error the date was shown as 16/12/1961.
(3.) Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that based on the date of birth as 16/12/1961 the petitioner already has superannuated on 31/12/2019. Attention was drawn to the communication dtd. 29/11/2013 of the Commandant of the State Reserve Police Force, Pavdi, Dahod that the petitioner was informed that he should produce material to show as to why his date of birth should not be accepted to be 16/12/1961 as endorsed in the service book and not 16/12/1963 as per the School Leaving Certificate. Mr. Sharma would submit that right throughout his career, from his date of joining to 2011, the gradation list continued to reflect the date of birth as 16/12/1963. There was no reason therefore without any material to change the date of birth to 16/12/1961. From the years 2013 to 2019, since pursuant to the representations made by the petitioner nothing was done, he was constrained to prefer Special Civil Application No. 11898 of 2019 was preferred by the petitioner seeking appropriate direction to the respondents to decide the representation which was pending since 10/12/2013. The Court directed the respondents to accordingly decide the representation within a month from the date of receipt of the order. It is pursuant to this order that the impugned order dtd. 20/9/2019 has been passed.