RAHIMO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has been retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of date of birth recorded in the service record of the petitioner, which is dated 7.3.1950. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court on 29th March, 2010, whereas the petitioner was sought to be retired from 31st March, 2010. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is of age of 51 years only and she submitted sufficient proof for her age including medical certificate obtained from the Medical Jurist of Jaisalmer Government Hospital, which is placed on record as Annex.5 certifying that the petitioner is of age of about 50-51 years old only. It is also submitted that petitioner also submitted a copy of the election card, voter list and rashion card from which it can be gathered that petitioner is of the age of 51 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances in SBCWP No.939/2005 Smt. Jamna Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, this Court passed interim order on 18.3.2005.

(3.) I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner placed on record the copy of the seniority list dated 13.9.2000 issued by the respondents, office order dated 18.11.2009, copy of the rashion card, copy of the voter's list and medical report. It is clear from the seniority list dated 13.9.2000 that in the seniority list, the date of birth of the petitioner is given as 7.3.1950 and date of joining is given as 1st April, 1999. She never questioned her date of birth till she is sought to be retired. The petitioner's documents, rashion card and voter's list prima facie are not sufficient to prove the age because that admission in her own favour. So far as medical certificate is concerned, that is also is not a sufficient proof. Therefore, these disputed facts cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction that what is the correct date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner already stands retired on 1.3.2010, therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained to decide the factual aspect. So far as order of this court passed in SBCWP No.939/2005 is concerned, no fact is available of the aforesaid case before this court, however, in the order dated 18.3.2005, this court ordered that the concerned authority is directed to remain present in court personally along with the service record of the petitioner and thereafter granted the interim order. In this case, it is not in dispute that date of birth recorded in the petitioner's service book is 7.3.1950. In view of the above, the order passed in SBCWP No.939/2005 is of no help to the petitioner.