MOHAMMAD AYUB Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel. Listing application is being disposed of and with the consent of the parties the present writ petition is disposed of in view of Second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules, 1952.

(2.) IN this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 2-2-1998 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner was directed to be retired on 30-6-1998, with a further prayer to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till 30-6-2001.

(3.) THOUGH counter-affidavit has not been filed, however, the learned Standing Counsel had submitted that the date of birth entered into the service book and duly verified by the petitioner and endorsed by the competent authority is to be taken as correct date of birth. The petitioner has acknowledged the same and has not agitated or claimed for correction of his date of birth after entering in service. As the dispute of the date of birth is a question of fact and that could only be rectified by Civil Court by way of suit the petitioner might have relied upon evidences and documents of his choice to prove his controversial date of birth at appropriate forum and the disputed question of fact can not be gone into in the writ petition.