RAM KRISHNA PANDEY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri S. D. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Tiwari, learned Counsel, holding brief of Sri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the respondents. In this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 13-9- 1999 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) issued by the Registrar, University of Allahabad and further prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from effecting any recovery on the basis of the order dated 13-9-1999 and also for commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as a Class-IV employee till 31-10-2003 i. e. till he attains the age of 60 years.

(2.) IT appears that by order dated 13-9-1999, treating the petitioner's date of birth 30-1-1939 as entered into service record, the petitioner after completing the age of superannuation was notified to be retired from 30-1-1999, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents it has been argued that the claim of alternation of date of birth in the facts and circumstances by disputing the same is disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into writ jurisdiction, as the same could be adjudicated before the trial Court in the suit, provided the petitioner files a plaint with the authentic supporting documents, namely, birth certificate by a Doctor or by Gram Pradhan, family register and horoscope and the statements in support of the plaint and after proper verification of the documents the declaration of the trial Court on the basis of the medical examination made including ossification of bones and after investigation, the date of birth could have been declared.