KALYANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dtd. 7/7/1995 passed by the Chief Superintendent, Women Hospital, Varanasi altering the petitioner's date of birth from that recorded in her service-book to 18/1/1956. The one originally recorded is 18/1/1963. Also, under challenge is an order dtd. 5/9/2014 passed by the Chief Medical Superintendent, Government Women Hospital, Varanasi, affirming the fact that the petitioner's date of birth, according to the medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi and recorded in her service-book is 18/1/1956. Thus, by the orders impugned, the respondents have advanced the petitioner's date of birth, originally recorded in her service-book, by as much as seven years hastening her superannuation.

(2.) The petitioner says that she hails from the caste known as Valmiki (a Scheduled Caste). She is illiterate and can barely sign her name in a clumsy hand. An advertisement was issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi for recruitment of sweepers at the Government Hospital, Varanasi. No educational qualifications were prescribed for the said post. The petitioner, being qualified for the post of a sweeper, applied along with others. She was appointed by the Chief Medical Officer last mentioned on 31/8/1982 and posted as a sweepress at the Women Hospital, Varanasi under the administrative control of the Chief Medical Superintendent, Government Women Hospital, Kabir Chauraha, Varanasi. The petitioner was medically examined on 18/1/1983 for ascertaining her correct age. The Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi issued a certificate, estimating the petitioner's age as 27 years on the date of her appointment. The estimation was made by the Chief Medical Officer on 18/1/1983 on a casual determination, without an ossification test. Nevertheless, in the absence of any record of the petitioner's age, such as her educational certificate or a Nagar Panchayat record, it was entered in her service-book, fixing for her date of birth, the date 18/1/1963. This determination of age was apparently made, accepting the petitioner's assertion about it and not the Chief Medical Officer's estimation of her age carried in his certificate dtd. 18/1/1963, which was considered but not accepted.

(3.) Much later, the same issue arose relating to certain sweepers with regard to their age, which did not concern the petitioner. Those sweepers said that their date of birth in the service record was not correctly recorded.