RAM RATAN Vs. DISTRICT BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed in service on 15.1.1960 when his date of birth was recorded in the service record as 5.2.1932. Sometimes in 1984, the petitioner alleged that he learnt that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in his service record. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari by his letter dated 4.4.1984 sent the concerned application of the petitioner to the Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur. The Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur examined the petitioner on 30th August, 1984 and issued a certificate that the petitioner was found to be aged about 45 years on the date. The date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in service record was struck off at the time of audit. He also contends that pursuant to the order of the District Basic Education Officer relying upon the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer, the date of birth was correctly recorded as on 30 the August, 1939 by some officer. In such circumstances the order dated 12th May, 1992 contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition seeking to retire the petitioner on 29.2.1992 has since been challenged by the petition in this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. R.K.Kakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner did not read.in any school and was not in possession of any school leaving certificate, therefore, his date of birth should be decided on the basis of a certificate from the Civil Surgeon of the district ,therefore, correction of the date of birth in the service record has rightly been done. He next contends that since the respondents themselves had referred the matter to the Chief Medical Officer and had corrected the date of birth in the service record, it is no more open to the respondents to retire the petitioner on; the basis of the date of birth recorded at the time of his entry into the service since been struck off. Therefore, the petitioner could not be retired on the basis of his date of birth as on 5th February, 1932.

(3.) Mr. Ajay Bharot, learned Brief Holder for the State of U.P. on the other hand contends that the date of birth is to be recorded on first entry into service pursuant to the rules governing the determination of date of birth, as contained in the paragraph 14 of the old Rules replaced by paragraph 14 which is quoted in the said Government Order dated 23rd August, 1965, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. According to him it is not a case of recording of the date of birth. On the other hand it is an alteration of the date of birth recorded in the service record after paragraph 14 had come into effect, therefore, it would be governed by paragraph 14 (4) of the said Rules. The service record does not show that the date of birth was corrected by the District Basic Education Officer. On the other hand in ;the writ petition itself, the petitioner has contended that the same was corrected at the time of audit. In ;the counter affidavit, it has been pointed out that the same was struck off in 1990 at the time of audit. The fact that it was so recorded in 1984 has not been admitted. Thus the said fact remains a disputed question of fact. A perusal of the service record annexed in the writ petition does not take away the question from the ambit of disputed question of fact. Therefore, this Court cannot enter into such fact. He also contends that at the fag end of the career, the question cannot be raised as has been sought to be raised in the present writ petition.