DEV PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one has appeared on behalf of respondent, nor any written statement has been filed, therefore, the writ petition is being decided on the facts as stated in the writ petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case, as per pleadings and annexure attached to writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as class IV servant vide order dated 19. 7. 67 initially for a short period of three months and thereafter six months, but later on, promoted to the post of LDC vide order dated 1. 6. 70 (Annex. 1 ). Despite the fact that the petitioner was working as clerk but his increments were not sanctioned. He had to file the writ petition No. 1326/81. He was granted the increments for the year 1980-81 and the writ petition came to be withdrawn.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner must succeed. The change of date of birth from 19. 7. 51 to 19. 7. 50 has been made without any notice to petitioner. According to petitioner his date of birth as entered in this certificate of Secondary School is 19. 7. 51, which was entered in the service book as well. If at all any change was to be made by the department, that could have only be made on some evidence, documents or any other reliable information that too, after giving due notice to petitioner, which provision has not been complied with. The order annexure-5 has been passed suo moto at the back of petitioner, violating well settled principles of natural justice and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.