BADRI PRASAD DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Badro Pd. Dubey joined service of the Kanpur Municipal Board as a Terminal Tax Inspector in the year 1926 on a year's probation. He was duly confirmed on the post on the expiry of the probationary period. The petitioner alleges that at the time of his appointment there was some discrepancy between the age given in his Matriculation certificate and his age according to the horoscope, and he brought out the discrepancy to the notice of the Municipal Board and adduced proof of his real age. Enquiries were made as provided for under Regulation No. 7 of Clause 5 of the Kanpur Municipal bye-laws and model regulation given in Municipal Manual. The age given in the horoscope was accepted as the correct age. This age was entered in his service book, The entry was attested every five years as required by Rule 4, Regulation 11 of the Kanpur Municipality bye-laws and continued throughout. In spite of the continued entry of his correct age in accordance with his horoscope the matter was brought to the notice of the authorities of the local-self department and eventually a communication was received from the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Uttar Pradesh, through the Administrator, Municipal Board, Kanpur dated 29-8-1955 to the effect that on representation the attention of the Board is directed to the regulation regulating the maintenance of correct record of age of Municipal employees printed on page 454 of the Municipal Manual (1952 Edition) and to say that the date of birth of Sri Badri prasad Dubey should be taken to be the one as borne out from his Matriculation Certificate. A copy of this communication was forwarded to the petitioner with the remark that the retirement of the petitioner is due on 30-10-1955, On the age given in the Matriculation Certificate. The petitioner would have retired on the 30-10-1957.

(2.) The contention, however, of the petitioner was that the correct age of the petitioner according to the horoscope on the date when he passed the Matriculation examination that is, 31-3-1914 was 16 years, 7 months and not 18 years, 6 months as shown in the certificate. According to his correct age he should have retired on 30-10-1957. On these facts the petitioner moved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 21-10-1955 for the following reliefs:

(3.) It may be pointed out at this stage that the petitioner averred in his affidavit that Sri J. N. Saxena, Terminal Tax Inspector, developed ill-feeling against the applicant due to the applicant's reports against his unsatisfactory working and it was Mr. Saxena who managed to have this settled matter of the applicant's age raked up again through filing an application against the applicant. The matter was finally placed before the Administrator by the interested parties and enquiry was made from the applicant as to why 15-10-1895 should not be accepted as the correct date of birth through a letter dated 12-4-55. Thereafter all the facts were put up by the petitioner before" the Administrator and it appears that the matter was referred by him to the State Government on which the communication referred to earlier was received. The petitioner has. however, not placed his case on the ground that the order was obtained by mala fide action of Sri J. N. Saxena. No facts have also been set out in detail in his affidavit which go to establish any mala fides on the part of the Municipal authorities in passing the order dated 3-9-1955 nor has it been pointed out as to how Sri J. N. Saxena could influence the Administrator or the State Government in passing the order in dispute.