CHHAWNTLUANGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondent authorities.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Chainman in the Office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Lunglei vide order dated 27. 10. 1973. As required under the Service Rules the respondent authorities opened Service Book for the petitioner with initial entries made therein on 20. 6. 1974 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Govt. of Mizoram, Lunglei. Column No. 5 relates to date of birth by Christian era as nearly as can be ascertained. In the said Column, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded. According to the petitioner his date of birth is 1. 4. 1955 and he made declaration to that effect at the time of opening initial Service Book. According to him as per the declaration the Assistant Settlement Officer recorded his date of birth as on 1. 4. 1955 but the last figure '5' in the year has been manipulated by over writing thereon figure 1 by an unknown person. The respondent authorities accepted petitioner's date of birth as on 1. 4. 1951 in the year 1997 without giving any notice to the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid over writing made upon the figure '5' by figure '1'. The petitioner made representations before the respondent authorities for correction of his date of birth as on 1. 4. 1955 but the same was rejected vide impugned orders dated 16. 12. 2003 and 24. 6. 2008.

(3.) AN affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the State respondents wherein it is maintained that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1. 4. 1951 and the same was originally entered in his Service Book as per his declaration made at the time of opening the Service Book. It was the petitioner himself who, in an unauthorized manner made the over writing on figure '1' by '5' for his benefit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that, the respondent No. 1 thoroughly examined the entry made in the Service Book in regard to date of birth of the petitioner and it was found that figure 1 was some how manipulated over written by figure 5 over figure 1 and it was clear from the examination of notesheet that 1. 4. 1951 was the original figure. The government therefore, had no other option but to accept the original entry i. e. 1. 4. 1951 as the correct date of birth of the petitioner as per the Rules.