RAJINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, immediately before her superannuation, filed the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents to make correction of her date of birth in the service book of the petitioner, She also sought direction that she be not superannuated on January 31, 1991 on attaining the age of 58 years on the basis of the existing entries.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Punjabi Teacher in the Punjab Education Department on 25.5.1963 and at the time of filing the present writ petition, she was working as Punjabi Teacher in Government Girls High School, Samrala District Ludhiana. In her writ petition, she has alleged that her date of birth was wrongly shown at the time of admission in the Primary School and resultantly wrong date of birth was mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate. For correcting her date of birth, she made an application to the Registrar, Panjab University, Chandigarh. In pursuance of her application, syndicate of the University, in its proceedings held on 19.7.1969 decided to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 4.4.1935 instead of 26.1.1933. After necessary correction was made, revised Matriculation Certificate was issued to the petitioner on 19.7.1969. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner made representation to the department for correction of her date of birth but no action whatsoever was taken by the department. She has also alleged that the correspondence between her and the department for correction of her date of birth is going on but no final decision has been taken by respondent No. 1 in this regard. In support of her claim, she has also annexed certain letters exchanged with the department whereby respondent No. 1 sought certain clarification from the Director, Public Instructions (Primary) Punjab, Chandigarh. The action of the respondents in not finalising the case of the petitioner about correcting her date of birth is being challenged on the ground of being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice.

(3.) Respondents Nos. 1 to 2 have filed a joint written statement. Respondents not only denied the allegations made in the writ petition but also stated that the petitioner is not entitled to take benefit of two years on the basis of revised Matriculation Certificate issued by the Panjab University, Chandigarh as the same is not binding on them. It has further been stated in the written statement that it was only on 1.9.1986 that the petitioner represented for the correction of her date of birth.