SUCHA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who was born on April 9, 1940 as is evident from his certificate of the matriculation examination (Annexure P-1) and who joined service in the 5th Btn. of C.R.P.F. on 15.7.1957 has sought issue of a writ of mandamus for quashing annexure P-8 dated 15.4.1988, order (Annexure P-10) dated 16.8.1993 and order (Annexure P-ll) dated 22.9.1993.

(2.) Petitioner has pleaded that he was enrolled in C.R.P.F. in the year 1957. At the time of enrolment, he did not have matriculation certificate with him. Therefore, the doctor who had conducted medical examination of die petitioner assessed his age to be 18 years. In the service book, the date of birth was recorded as 15.7.1939. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for recording of his date of birth as 9.4.1940 on the basis of entry made in the matriculation certificate and this was accepted by the competent authority and entry of his date of birth came to be changed as 9.4.1940 instead of 15.7.1939. Petitioner has also placed on record Annexure P-2 to show that the Deputy Inspector General of Police C.R.P.F., New Delhi had vide his memo No.C.VI-1/63 dated 8.2.1963 condoned the deficiency of age in his case as also in cases of over a dozen recruits. In fact deficiencies of various types had been condoned by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. in the case of as many as 174 recruits. Date of birth of the petitioner as 9.4.1940 has also been reflected in the gradation list issued by the Directorate-General of C.R.P.F. vide Annexure P-3 dated 8.2.1992. After he had rendered service for about 30 years, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 28.12.1987 by the Commandant, 3rd Signal Btn. Rampur (U.P.) calling upon him to show cause as to why his date of birth may not be treated as 15th July 1939. The Commandant noted that no reason had been assigned by the competent authority for effecting a change in his date of birth from 15.7.1939 to 9.4.1940. In his reply dated 30.12.1987 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner pointed out that deficiency in his age had been condoned by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. vide his order dated 16.2.1963 and that there was no defect in his appointment as a member of C.R.P.F. Another show cause notice (Annexure P-6) followed by another detailed reply (Annexure P-7) have been placed on record by the petitioner to show that he had complied with all the directions given by the Commandant, 3rd Signal Btn. C.R.P.F. Finally the Assistant Commandant (Administration) conveyed the decision of the authorities of the C.R.P.F. as contained in letter dated 15.4.1988 (Annexure P-8) whereby the petitioner has been intimated that Inspector General of Police (Headquarters) has ruled that no change is warranted or necessary at this stage and, therefore, the date of birth originally recorded as 15.7.1939 will remain unchanged. Faced with this reversal of his recorded date of birth the petitioner made another representation to the Director General of C.R.P.F. This representation of the petitioner has been rejected by one line communication that the same has been considered and has been rejected being devoid of merit. This decision of the Director General of C.R.P.F. has been followed by an order dated 20.2.1993 for retirement of the petitioner with effect from 31.7.1994 (Annexure P-ll).

(3.) In assailing the impugned order, the petitioner has contended that once the deficiency of the age requirement was condoned by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. as early as on 16.2.1963 and that said condoned order has not been by the higher authorities, it is not open to the respondents to retire the petitioner on the basis of his date of birth i.e. 15.7.1939. His plea is that when the competent authority had effected the change in his date of birth as early as in 1963, it was not justified for the Commandant, 3rd Signal Btn. C.R.P.F. to re-open the issue regarding the date of birth vide show cause notice dated 28.12.1987 and in any case the decision conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexure P-8 is arbitraryand unreasonable.