SHANKAR LAL PANDEY Vs. VICE-CHANCELLOR ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri V. K. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. S. Baghel, learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent of the parties this writ petition is disposed of under Second proviso Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court, 1952. In this petition the order dated 19-1-1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) has been challenged whereby the petitioner after completing 60 years of age was to retire on 31-12-1996 treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 4-12-1936. According to the petitioner he is High School pass from Board of High School and Intermediate Education Allahabad in short called 'board' and had joined as an Assistant Librarian in year 1965 in the Allahabad University where the date of birth of petitioner was recorded in the service book as 4-12-1936 the same was at one time verified by the petitioner and the competent authority, however the petitioner continued in service without any break and was retired on 31-12- 1996. The petitioner claims his date of birth as 19-8-1942 and asserts that the name of the father of petitioner is Nankai Lal Pandey alias Kashi Prasad Pandey and both names are of his father, while entering in the service in University the name of the father of the petitioner was written as Sri Kashi Prasad Pandey, but his original High School certificate was lost which was obtained from the 'board' in duplicate and transfer certificate from Shri Radharaman Inter College, Daraganj, Allahabad in both these certificates procured by the petitioner the date of birth of the petitioner is 19-8-1942 and name of his father as Nankai Lal Pandey. Supplementary affidavit was also filed as Annexure 4 endeavouring to explain how his father's name was entered in the school records as Nankai Lal and Kashi Prasad in the service records of University respectively. According to the petitioner despite repeated representations no heed was taken therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for alteration of date of birth.

(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the respondents. As asserted in para 10 of the counter affidavit the petitioner's father name was mentioned as Kashi Prasad Pandey and not Nankai Lal Pandey in all the records of the University. In the past, petitioner had filed as many as two writ petitions as indicated below, in this Court seeking various reliefs such as, salary, promotion etc. and in all the writ petitions he has sworn affidavits showing his father's name as Kashi Prasad Pandey. In none of the affidavits sworn by him, he had shown his father's name as Nankai Lal Pandey or father's name Nankai Lal Pandey alias Kashi Prasad Pandey. The earlier petitions filed by the petitioner are as under: (i) Writ Petition No. (sic) of 1998 (ii) Writ Petition No. 3169 of 1990 (iii) Contempt Petition No. 1409 of 1994.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the University has also produced order sheet dated 4-11-2003 of this Court and the financial statement. According to the respondents the certificate on which the petitioner has placed reliance does not belong to him.