- (1.)THIS is a writ petition under Article 123 of the Constitution by one Ganesh Datta and by it he seeks to question the validity of a Government order dated 19 June 1967 superannuating the petitioner consequent to the reduction of the age of superannuation from 58 to 55 years as a result of an amendment of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The relevant facts are briefly these: The petitioner entered the service of the former Jodhpur State as a permanent clerk on 21 February 1931. In his application for employment according to him, he gave his age as either 19 or 21 years. He takes the positions that this was gives under a mistaken advice as he thought than persons below 18 years of ago were not eligible for appointment. The petitioner then applied before the then Chief Minister of Jodhpur State for correction of his age. The Chief Minister did pass an order on 28 August 1935 (Ex. 4) to the effect that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 7 July 1914 and not 4 June 1911 as was entered in his service sheet and accordingly the same be corrected. It appears that thereafter there had been some correspondence between the Chief Minister of the Jodhpur State and the State Auditor and eventually on 19 November 1935 the Chief Minister passed an order (Ex. 5) saying that the request of the petitioner to change his date of birth should not be granted. In that order, which is in the form of a letter to the State Auditor, the Chief Minister observed that the petitioner Ganesh Datta appeared to be about 25 years old, although, according to his assertion, his correct date of birth was 7 July 1914 which showed his age to be only 21 years. The Chief Minister added teat Ganesh Datta admitted that he gave the wrong date of his birth (4 June 1911) deliberately in order to secure a permanent job, as he feared that if he gave the correct, date, he might be considered too young for a permanent poet. It was on account of this, that the Chief Minister thought that the clerk having himself given a wrong age to secure the job in the first instance he should suffer the consequence. The petitioner who entered the service of the ex-Jodhpur State as a clerk secured several promotions which need not be noticed. Eventually he came to be absorbed as a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service in the State of Rajasthan. He states that in the year 1959 or so he made a representation for confection of his age, but by an order dated 7 November 1959 (Ex. 8), the petitioners representation was rejected. The petitioner again made a representation, but was not successful.
(2.)IN challenging the order of his superannuation the petitioner contends that that order is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution inasmuch as no opportunity was given to the petitioner for establishing his correct age, in that by the time his superannuation was ordered, he had really not attained the age of 55 years which, according to him, he would be attaining sometime in 1969. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the Government was under a duty to hold a proper enquiry before ordering his superannuation. In support of assertion about his correct age he placed reliance on his Matriculation certificate.
(3.)I have heard Sri M. L. Joshi for the petitioner. Sri Joshi placed reliance on State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. 1967-II L. L. J. 266, Dakshaprasad Deka v. Inspector-General of Police, Assam, and Ors. A. I. R. 1967 Assam 13 and Bhanwar Singh Bhup singh Rajput v. State of Madhya Pradesh A. I. R. 1863 M. P. 335/
;