COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JANTA UCHCHTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA BAIKUNTHPUR DEORIA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION VII REGION GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Garg, J. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India, it is prayed that the order dated 10-2-1994, contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition, passed by the Deputy Director of Education (for short 'dde"), Vllth Region, Gorakhpur-respondent No. 1 and the order dated 15-3-1994, con tained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition, passed by District Inspector of Schools (for short 'digs'), Deoria respondent No. 2, be quashed.

(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri Amar Nath Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Amar Nath Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, at considerable length.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner took me through the School Leaving Certificate (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) in which the date of birth of the respon dent No. 3 has been mentioned as 25-6-1933 and the letter dated 2-3-1994 (An nexure 4 to the writ petition) addressed by the Manager of the institution to the DIGS with which a Photostat copy of the option of pay determination in form 'cha' submitted in the year 1982 was annexed. In this proforma, the date of birth of the respondent No. 3 has been shown as 25-6-1933. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the date of birth of the respondent No. 3 was correctly shown in the year 1982 and there was no occasion to manipulate the date of birth in the year 1982 as there was no dispute between the parties. It was also pointed out that the option form is duly signed by the respon dent No. 3, Principal of the College and this then DIGS. Reference was also made to Annexure C. A. 9 to the counter-af fidavit of respondent No. 3, Ramjit. It is a Photostat copy of the particulars of the employee. The date of birth mentioned therein as 23-6-1933 has been scored out at two places and 18-8-1942 has been sub stituted and counter signed by the Prin cipal in the year 1991. On the strength of the above documents, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that it is well es tablished that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 25-6-1933 and not 18-8-1942, as directed to be corrected by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The seemingly simple submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not accept able as from the facts, which may be nar rated presently there is an entirely dif ferent picture of the controversy.