DEVNARAYAN SURYADEV RAI Vs. MAHENDRA RAMSUNDER DIKSHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) Firstly, a short background of the controversy between the parties requires to be noted. It appears that the plaintiff has in a number of litigations continued to assert and insist firstly that he is entitled to function as Head Master/Principal of the institutions in question, and that his date of birth as recovered in vari6us official records is incorrect, and that he is entitled to function as Head Master/Principal Until he is retired on the basis of only his correct date of birth which is 22nd December 1939.

(3.) In view of my aforesaid findings, I do not consider it necessary to go into the detailed examination of the impugned order, as to whether the same could or could not have been legitimately passed on the date when it was passed. Suffice it to say that the impugned order is not justified at least today.