HATEM ALI SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of the order dated 08.03.2011 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam (respondent No.2) determining the date of birth of the petitioner to be 02.09.1948 in terms of the admission register in Class IV and not 02.01.1953 as recorded in his service book, which is based on the date of birth entered in his High School Leaving Certificate Examination and of the consequential order dated 11.03.2011 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Dhubri District Circle (respondent 3) retiring him from service is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition, as pleaded by the pertitioner, are that he passed the HSLC Examination in 1969 with his age recorded as 16 years, 1 month and 29 days as on 01.03.1969. As per this record, his date of birth is 02.01.1953. After obtaining B. A. degree, he was appointed as the founder Headmaster of Salkata Janapriya High School in the year 1979. The school was provincialised in the year 1991. In his service book also, his date of birth was recorded as 02.01.1953. On the basis of this entry, he is due to retire only on 31.01.2013 on superannuation. However, a complaint was lodged by the respondent No.4, due to personal grudge against him, before respondent No.3 claiming that whereas his age was recorded in the M.V. School as 9 years, 4 months and 14 days as on 16.01.1958, his age was recorded as 12 years and 18 days as on 20.01.1965. Respondent No.3, after examining the Certificate of the HSLC Examination and his service book did not find any discrepancy in his age and refused to entertain the complaint. Aggrieved by these findings of the respondent No.3, the respondent No. 4 moved this Court in WP (C) No. 2864/10 for directing the respondent authorities to hold an enquiry with respect to the age of the petitioner. On receipt of notice from this Court, respondent No.3 was alleged to have hurriedly prepared an enquiry report on 14.09.2010 and submitted his report to respondent No. 2. On the basis of this enquiry report, the Court by the order dated 31.01.2011 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to consider the report and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 thereafter, without issuing notice to him and without hearing him, passed an ex-parte order on 08.03.2011 on the basis of the said enquiry report by holding that as his age was actually 9 years, 4 months and 14 days as on 16.01.1958, his date of birth is 02.09.1948 as recorded in the M. V. School and that his date of retirement was, therefore, 31.09.2008. Consequently, respondent No. 2 refused to accept the date of birth of the petitioner entered in the service book and directed respondent No.3 to take action accordingly. This is how the second impugned order of retirement of the petitioner came to be issued by respondent No. 3 releasing him from service with effect from 30.09.2008 and appointing the respondent No.4 to hold the charge of the post of Headmaster. The petitioner immediately filed a representation to the respondent No.2 to recall both the impugned orders as they are illegal, but no action was taken. This prompted him to file this writ petition to seek the interference of this Court as the impugned orders are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions.