S.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record. The petitioner feels aggrieved by a notice dated 26.1.1994 issued by the Manager, Har Sahai, Jagdamba Sahai Inter College, Kanpur, which is an 'Institution' contemplated under Section 2(b) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and falls within the purview of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, (U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges) (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971), whereunder he has been informed that his services in that college as Lecturer in English will cease with effect from 1.5.1994 on superannuation. His grievance is that on the receipt of the aforesaid notice he submitted a representation dated 6.2.1994 before the management and the District Inspector of Schools that his correct date of birth is 1.3.1938 which was wrongly recorded in the High School certificate and 'else where' which may be corrected, but nothing was being done and he is sought to be illegally superannuated. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed this petition only so far as the first relief claimed therein is concerned which is for the quashing of the notice/order dated 26.1.1994, referred to above.
(2.) THE petitioner has asserted that he had been appointed as Teacher in the C.T. grade in the 'Institution' on 17.7.1963 and was promoted in the L.T. grade on 18.7.1966 and had been working as Lecturer in English since 8.7.1987, the approval for which post was accorded by the District Inspector of Schools on 30.5.1989. The petitioner has further stated in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that the date of his birth as recorded in the High School certificate is 1.5.1934. He however, claims that this entry is incorrect and seeks to place reliance upon an alleged report submitted in Kanpur Nagar Palika on 1.3.1938 intimating that a son named Baikunath Narain was born to Kalicharan Tripathi on 1.3.1938 and also on an undated horoscope showing the same date of birth. These documents however, appear to have been produced for the first time alongwith this writ petition as there is no reference thereof in the representations submitted by the petitioner to which a reference has been made above. There does not appear to be any doubt that white submitting his High School Certificate and other certificates at the time of his appointment in the year 1963, the petitioner had not requested for any alteration in his date of birth and had not disputed the correctness of his date of birth as recorded in the same. A service book is prepared for an employee in the 'Institution,' under Regulation 68 of the Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Act, and as provided under Regulation 75 of the Chapter II of the Regulations the petitioner had full opportunity to inspect his service book and infact, had to put his signature on every occasion whenever entries relating to increase in pay, promotion, leave etc. were made therein. Still, the dispute relating to the correction of the entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner was raised for the first time just a few months before his notified date of superannuation. The date of birth entered in the service record is of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A teacher who has declared his age at the initial stage of his employment is of course not precluded from making request later on for correcting his age but he can do so only if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the earlier recorded and put forward his claim in this regard without any unreasonable delay. Unless altered his date of birth as recorded would determine his right to continue in service even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service or the basis for his actual age. Merely raising a dispute challenging the date of birth as entered in the service record and applying for its correction cannot be deemed to furnish a ground for continuing in service and the record must be corrected before permitting the concerned employee, to continue in service on the basis of the altered date of birth. Inordinate or unexplained delay on the part of the employee concerned to seek the necessary correction justify refusal of the relief to him.
(3.) THE Apex Court in its decision in the case of Secretary and the Commissioner Home Department and others v. R. Kirudakaran J.T. : 1993 (5) S.C. 404 had observed that unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature is made out the Court should not issue a direction on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible and before any direction is issued the court must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person in the matter relating to the claim for correction of date of birth. It was observed that if no rule or order has been framed or made prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The Apex Court emphasised that the Court should be slow in granting the interim relief for continuance in service unless prima facie evidence of un -impeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds he can always be compensated but if he fails he would have enjoyed undue benefits of extended service and merely cause injustice to his immediate junior.;