- (1.) IN the above noted writ petition common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, on the request of the parties they were directed to be connected and heard together.
(2.) THE writ petition No. 9845 of 1990 was filed by Deo Nath Yadav challenging the validity of the order dated 10-12-1989. Prayers to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent not to interfere in his functioning as Class IV employee (Peon) in Gram Samaj Intermediate College, Jai Nagar, Azamgarh and to pay his salary also were are also made. This case is being treated as leading case as in the event this petition succeeds the other petitions will fail automatically and vice versa. Deo Nath Yadav, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, and his counsel as petitioner's counsel and other contesting parties as respondents for the sake of brevity and convenience. I have perused the record of the four cases. From a perusal of the said record following facts came to light. It was on 1-1-1971 Shri Deo Nath Yadav, the petitioner in the leading case was appointed as class IV employee in Gram Samaj Inter College, Jai Nagar, Azamgarh (here inafter referred to as the College ). On the basis of extract of Kutumb register the date of birth of the petitioner was noted in the service book as 1-1-1930. After his appointment Shri Deo Nath Yadav continued to work in the College. By means of notice dated 10-12-1989, the principal of the college intimated Shri Deo Nath Yadav that he will attain the age of superannua tion i. e. , 60 years on 31-12-1989. He was, therefore, called to fulfil the formalities of retirement and to submit requisite papers so that they may be submitted to the authorities concerned. On receipt of the said letter peti tioner filed representations to the District Inspector of Schools contending that his date of birth was not correctly recorded in the service record. Along with the representation he annexed the certificate of Chief Medical Officer, a copy of Kutumb Register and voter list. Thereafter, Shri Deo Nath Yadav also wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools requesting him to rectify his date of birth, but of no avail, therefore, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9845 of 1990 was filed by him for the above noted relief. On 13-4-1990 notices were issued to the respondents and learned standing counsel was granted time to file the counter affidavit. The writ petition was directed to be listed on 9-5-1990. On 9-5-1990 the writ petition was directed to be listed for admission in the second week of July, 1990. Learned standing counsel was again permitted to file counter-affidavit in the meanwhile. However, to counter-affidavit was filed consequently, on 9-7-1990 this Court was pleased to pass following order :- "on 13-4-1990 learned standing counsel was granted time to file counter-affidavit. The order was not complied with. Again on 9-5-1990 time was granted to learned standing counsel but no counter-affidavit has been filed till this date. Admit, Issue notice. Until further order the respondents are restrained from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner as class IV employee. They are further directed to pay the entire emoluments of salary due to the petitioner by 16-8-1990. The current salary will be paid to the petitioner by 5th of each succeeding month. "
(3.) THEREAFTER, counter-affidavit of Shri Jagdish Singh, Head Clerk of the college, along with the application dated, 27-7-1990, appear to have filed, for vacation of the interim order dated 2-7-1990, which was directed to be listed with the previous. papers in the week commencing 7-8-1990. In the counter-affidavit it was stated that date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the service book was 1- 1-1930. That the District Inspector of Schools has colluded with the petitioner. In spite of the fact, the service book and other relevant papers were furnished to him well in time did not file counter-affidavit in the case and provided opportunity to the petitioner to obtain ex parte interim order dated 9-7-1990. Facts stated in other applications made in the writ petition, were also controverted and it was asserted that on 21-5-1990, after following the procedure prescribed under law one Shri Ram Pyare was appointed as peon in place of the petitioner. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner controverted the facts stated in the counter-affidavit and asserted that by the order of District Magistrate an enquiry was conducted by Additional District Magistrate who was submitted his enquiry report on 1-10-1990 in his favour.;