S.R. Misra, J. - (1.) The present writ petition involves the determination about the date of birth of the petitioner. In the service record the date of birth of the petitioner was written initially as 28 years at the time of the appointment. He filed a representation against the notice dated 12-1-1993 challenging the said notice on the ground that it will amount to premature retirement. The representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 26-5-1993 (Annexuie-6 to the writ petition). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent Sri Lalji Sinha. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the same has been passed without application of mind and this cannot be said to be an order which can be upheld.
(3.) Accordingly the impugned order is quashed and 1 direct the authority concerned to pass u fresh order on the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months or earlier from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.;