- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the District Judge, Mainpuri, retiring the petitioner from service in public interest exercising the jurisdiction envisaged under Rule 56 as amended, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking redress praying f of the quashing of the said order.
(2.) I have heard Sri K. Ajit, learned Counsel of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents who has also produced the original service book of the petitioner along with the medical report, dated 11-5-1978 submitted by the Chief Medical Officer, Mainpuri in regard to the age of the petitioner. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner had entered in service on 23rd September, 1966 having been appointed in a post falling in category IV. At the time of his entry into service, the date 6th May, 1943 had been recorded in his service book as the date of his birth. This entry was duly endorsed by the District Judge, Mainpuri. However, it appears that the District Judge, Mainpuri called for a report from the Chief Medical Officer, Mainpuri in the year 1978 in regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner in response to the direction of the District Judge appeared before the Chief Medical Officer on 11th May, 1978. The Chief Medical Officer submitted a report on 11th May, 1978 wherein it was reported that taking into consideration the height of the petitioner which was 160 centimeters, his body weight which was 65 kilograms, the number of teeth which was 9/10 and the colour of his hair which was 30% grey and the physical appearance, in the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer his age appeared to be 45 years. It further appears that on the basis of the above report, the entry of the date of birth of the petitioner which had been entered in the service book at the time of his entry into service was deleted and substituted by the words 'year 1933' indicating that it was being done according to the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer. Mainpuri dated 11-5-1978.
(3.) IT further appears that en the basis of the aforesaid corrected entry of the petitioner's date of birth treating the petitioner to be more than 55 years of age his case was referred to a screening committee which after considering the service record of the petitioner recommended for his being compulsorily retired, from service vide its report dated 10-8-1989. The District Judge, Main puri vide his order dated 17th October, 1989 accepted the recommen dations of the screening committee and thereafter issued the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner is clearly without jurisdiction. The contention is that the petitioner's date of birth as originally entered in his service book could not have been altered in the manner done by the District Judge and if the petitioner's date of birth had to be taken into account in that event the petitioner having not attained the age of JO years either on 10th August, 1989 when the screening committee submitted its report or on 17-10-1989 when the said report was accepted or on October 27, 1989 when the impugned order had been passed, there could not arise any occasion to exercise the jurisdiction envisaged under Fundamental Rules 56 as amended as the petitioner could not be deemed to hive attained the age of 50 years which was a condition precedent for exercising the jurisdiction contemplated under the aforesaid provision. It has further been urged that since the petitioner had not passed the High School Examination of the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate or any other equivalent examination his date of birth recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the Government service had to be deemed to be his correct date of birth for all purpose in relation to his service including premature retirement as contem plated under the provisions contained in the U. P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 and consequently even for deter mining the petitioner's having attained the age of 50 years for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction envisaged under Fundamental Rule. 56 which could entitle the appointing authority to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service. The assertion is that in the circumstances of the present case, the correction made in the date of birth as recorded in the service book of the petitioner in the year 1978 had to be treated as non est and the appointing authority could not proceed on the basis of the altered date of birth of the petitioner so as to exercise the jurisdiction envisaged under Fundamental Rule 56 indicated hereinabove.;