MANGI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The only prayer made in the writ petition is, that the respondents be directed to immediately take necessary steps, and pass necessary orders for cancellation of the age, mentioned in the service record of the petitioners, and to mention correct age of the petitioners. Another request made is, for a direction to consider the representation of the petitioners, and accordingly, to initiate necessary proceedings in this direction.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is, that they were appointed as Beldars, and subsequently, in compliance of the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, they were declared semi-permanent by order dated 21.10.1995, which has been produced as Annex.3, wherein the names of the petitioners have been shown at serial No.42 and 43. Against this entry, the date of birth of the petitioners has been shown as 1.4.47 and 1.2.48 respectively, while as a matter of fact, the date of birth of the petitioner No.1 is 7.12.64, and that of petitioner No.2 is 15.6.65. It is alleged by the petitioners, that when the fact, of mentioning wrong date of birth, came to their knowledge, they made representations, and submitted, that at the time of declaring them as work charged employees, they had submitted affidavit mentioning their actual date of birth, but that has not been considered in the appointment order, instead a wrong date of birth has been mentioned, and that they are ready to get themselves medically examined. It is also alleged, that representation was not responded, and rather the communication (Annex.6) came to be issued, conveying that the certificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat is without any basis and evidence, and therefore, it is not admissible. Then in para-10, it is alleged "..besides above, when the petitioners had submitted the certificate at the time of their declaration as work-charged employee, it is not understandable as to what thing prevented the respondents to mention their correct age in their service record..". Thus, the petitioners want to convey, that at the time, when they were declared semi permanent, the petitioners submitted "certificate" about their date of birth.

(3.) In my view, the theories propounded by the petitioners are ex-facie not reliable, inasmuch as a look at Annex.5 shows, that these are representations submitted by the two petitioners on 3.4.99, wherein it is alleged, that at the time of declaring them work charged employees, they got prepared affidavit, but entry could not be made in the service record on that basis, and therefore, they may be got medically examined, and date of birth be corrected in the service record. An affidavit about date of birth was said to have been enclosed with each of the representation.