R BALU @ BALUSAMY Vs. PRESIDENT, KARIVALAMVANTHANALLUR PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent No.1 relating to the proceeding dated 19.04.2010 and quash the same and further direct the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner in the first respondent panchayat.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Scavanger in the year 1966 at the first respondent Panchayat. Thereafter, in order to make a service record on the petitioner, the first respondent wanted a proof for his age and other qualifications, since the petitioner, as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is an illiterate, he approached the hospital concerned and after having verified the physical fitness, the Doctor gave a certificate on 20.04.1988 by stating that the petitioner was at that time 48 years old.

(3.) Based on the said Medical Certificate declaring the age of the petitioner as 48, the petitioner's Service Record was entered by the first respondent with that age. However, at the time of making the entry in the Service Record, instead of entering the correct date of birth as 20.04.1950, it was wrongly entered as 20.04.1955 and therefore, the first respondent passed the impugned order on 19.04.2010 stating that as per the original date of birth ie., 20.04.1950, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation by 20.04.2010 and therefore, at the end of the said month, ie., on 31.04.2010, the petitioner has to retire from service. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.