GLADIS LAMARE Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance made in the writ petition is in respect of an order dated 5.4.2002 by which the petitioner was made to retire from service w.e.f. 31.12.2002 on the basis of the service records.

(2.) Shortly stated the facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Primary School Teacher by an order dated 15.6.1970 issued by the Education Officer, District Council, Jowai, Autonomous District. On being asked to produce her school certificate, the petitioner produced the same on 14.5.1974 and claimed her date of birth to be 17.12.1945. According to the petitioner, the birth certificate was submitted in original as was issued by the school authority. According to t he letter d ated 14.5.1974 by which the petitioner claimed to have forwarded her school certificate to the Education Officer, District Council, the Certificate was dated 17.2.1974 and was submitted in original. The School was taken over by the Government of Meghalaya under the provisions of "Meghalaya taking over of District Council L.P. School Act 1993". The petitioner being apprehensive of termination of her services served the pleader notice on 27.1.2003. As per the allegations made in the said notice there was a move to retire the petitioner from service untimely. In response to the said notice the D.I. of Schools. Jowai directed the petitioner to submit her school certificate in original by his letter dated 3.2.2003. The petitioner in response to the said letter submitted a duplicate school certificate which reflects her date of birth as 17.12.1945. The duplicate certificate was issued on 5.2.2003 by the school authority certifying that the petitioner left the School on 17.12.1964 and as per the date of birth recorded in the admission register, same is 17.12.1945. In turn, the D.I. of Schools by his letter dated 11.2.2003 once again directed the petitioner to produce the original certificate in lieu of the duplicate one. Thereafter, pursuant to the pleader notice issued on behalf of the petitioner, she was directed to meet the D.I. of Schools personally which the petitioner accordingly did. Thereafter the impugned order dated 5.4.2002 was issued indicating the date of the retirement of the petitioner as 31.12.2002 on the basis of her recorded date of birth in the Service Book as 17.12.1944. Thus the dispute is as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner is 17.12.1944 or 17.12.1945. According to the petitioner, the school certificate reflects her correct date of birth which is 17.12.1945 and on that basis the is entitled to continue her services upto 31.12.2003, but instead she has been made to retire from her service w.e.f. 31.12.2002 on the basis of wrong assumption of her date ofbirth to be 17.12.1944.

(3.) The respondent Nos. 1,2,3 and 6 have filed a joint affidavit denying the contention raised in the writ petition. According to the averments made in the said affidavit, the petitioner overstayed in her service forcibly. In the affidavit, the said respondents have annexed the relevant page of the Service Book of the petitioner depicting of her date ofbirth as 17.12.1944. The petitioner put her signature on the Service Book on 13.3.1973 as a token of endorsement to the entries made in the Service Book including her date ofbirth as 17.12.1944. She also out her thumb impression in the Service Book.