A.S.NAIDU, J. - (1.)THE petitioner, an erstwhile employee of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, has filed this Writ Petition inter alia challenging the Office Order dated 24.6.2003 (Annexure - 5) retiring him from Government service retrospectively with effect from 30.11.2002 afternoon, as well as the order dated 18.9.2003 (Annexure -8) rejecting his representation dated 15.7.2003.
(2.)IT is submitted that the petitioner was originally appointed as a Chowkidar in the erstwhile CD. and P.R. Department of the Government of Orissa by order dated 21.10.1966 although it appears from his service book that he had joined service on 12.10.1966. Thus discrepancy prevailed as to the entries made in his service book from the very inception. In his service book the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 17.11.1946. The petitioner was subsequently appointed as the Orderly to the Deputy Speaker in the Secretariat of the Legislative Assembly in the year 1967. Dispute arose when the authorities received written allegations from one Chakra Mohapatra and one Sankar Mohapatra who happened to be the close relatives of the petitioner that the petitioner had suppressed his real date of birth and in fact he was born on 29.11.1942, and not 17.11.1946. On receipt of such allegations, the P.R. Department was called upon to conduct an enquiry. On preliminary enquiry the authorities were prima facie satisfied that the real date of birth of the petitioner was 29.11.1942. He was therefore called upon to show cause as to why his date of birth would not be corrected as above and as to why he would not be made to retire from service on superannuation from 30.11.2002. The petitioner submitted his show cause reply sticking to the stand that his date of birth was 17.11.1946. The show cause reply of the petitioner was considered by the authorities along with an enquiry report submitted by the Collector concerned, the statement of the Inspector of Schools, Nayagarh and other materials, such as, School Admission Registers, etc. A perusal of the aforesaid documents revealed that the petitioner had been admitted in 'Sisu' class in Kurum Bankatara Primary School in the district of Nayagarh on 23.6.1948, vide Admission No. 658, and again he had been admitted in the same school on 13.6.1949, vide Admission No. 688, and the date of birth of the petitioner on both the occasions had been recorded in the Admission Registers as 29.11.1942. After affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner the authorities arrived at the conclusion that the real date of birth of the petitioner was 29.11.1942. On the basis of the said date of birth the petitioner was made to retire on superannuation from Government service retrospectively with effect from the afternoon of 30.11.2002, vide order Annexure -5.
Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, forcefully submitted that the entries made in the service book of the petitioner being sacrosanct, the same could not be changed at the fag end of his service career. He further submitted that the authorities, basing on extraneous materials, erroneously changed the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in his service book and the impugned order Annexure -5 was unjust, illegal and liable to be quashed. According to him, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to continue in service till he attained the age of superannuation in consonance with the date of birth recorded in his service book, i.e. 17.11.1946.

(3.)LEARNED counsel appearing for the State strongly repudiated the submission of Mr. Rao and submitted that the entry in the service book of the petitioner was not correct as admitted by the petitioner himself so far as his date of joining was concerned. It is further submitted that on receiving allegations a full -fledged enquiry was conducted and the materials were cross -checked and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the authorities rightly arrived at the conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner was in fact 29.11.1942 and accordingly the impugned order Annexure -5 was issued. The representation submitted by the petitioner had been duly considered by the authorities and the same had been rejected having no merit and, as such, the Writ Petition has no merit and may be dismissed in limine.