Shobha Dikshit, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was filed challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 24.8.96 passed by the Principal, Sri Bheesham Shah Higher Secondary School, Bhawanigarh, Raincha, district Sultanpur contained in Annexure -1 to the writ petition. By the said order the Principal informed the petitioner, a Chaukidar in the said Institution, that since his date of birth recorded as 1.3.1936 and changed to 1.1.1946 has been corrected subsequently to 1.1.1936 therefore he stands superannuated with effect from 31.12.1995. According to the petitioner, manipulation has been made at the instance of the Management and the Principal has reduced the age of the petitioner by ten years in order to retire him early so that they could fill the post by a person of their own choice and the petitioner was never given any opportunity before changing his date of birth which was recorded in his service book at the time of entry in service. Sri Bheesham Shah Higher Secondary School is a recognised institution and is therefore governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (as amended) and the Regulations framed thereunder. This Institution gets grant -in -aid and therefore the salary of the employees thereof is paid under the provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971.
(2.) THE petitioner joined the Institution as a Peon, Class IV post, in the year 1976. At that time the Institution was managed privately but was included in grant -in -aid scheme in 1984 vide Government order dated 12.4.84. Since then he was drawing regular salary which is payable to a class IV employee. While he was so working, he received the aforesaid impugned order that his date of birth is 1.1.1936 and not 1.1.1946. Being aggrieved by the same he made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools as also to the Deputy Director of Education, IXth Division, Faizabad. When the said representations were not decided the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition on 17.9.96. A show cause notice was issued to the opposite parties and learned Standing Counsel accepted the notice on behalf of the State Authorities and time was granted to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit was filed, therefore, this court, vide order dated 25.4.97 directed the Deputy Director of Education to dispose of the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter file counter affidavit within ten days. The Deputy Director of Education, accordingly, considered the matter after calling upon all concerned parties and perusing the relevant record, i.e. Service Book and some other documents. District Inspector of Schools was also called upon to file his comments. After fixing several dates the Deputy Director held the hearing on 24.7.97 in the presence of the petitioner, Manager of the Committee of Management, Principal and the District Inspector of Schools. The stand of the Principal before the Deputy Director was that when he took the charge from the previous Principal already there was a cutting in the date of birth of the petitioner and instead of 1.1.46, 1.1.1936 was recorded after making a cutting there. The concerned clerk also informed that according to the petitioner the date of birth was originally entered as 1.1.46. The Manager of the Committee of Management simply replied that whatever he has to say he had given in writing. The District Inspector of Schools stated that he has received no representation from the petitioner. However, the Principal was called upon on various occasions by the District Inspector of Schools to explain the reasons for making cutting in date of birth but the same was never replied. The Deputy Director of Education considered the matter in the light of the statements made by the aforesaid authorities, service book and the insurance policy and came to the conclusion that there is clear cutting in date of birth as entered originally, i.e. 1.1.1946, and after cutting in it's place 1.1.1936 has been recorded. The Deputy Director is clearly of the view that erasing of the date of birth and cutting are very clear in the Service Book. Therefore without giving any opportunity to the petitioner before making a change in the date of birth again and Principal to superannuate him on the basis of the changed dated of birth is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. In the insurance policy also the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 1.1.46. Taking all these facts into consideration the Deputy Director of Education has come to the conclusion that as per the determination of Date of Birth Rules, 1974: - -no change or cutting in the date of birth, as entered in the Service Book at the time of entry in service, can be made without proper enquiry and opportunity having been given to the petitioner and the same should have been based on some other evidence. In these circumstances the Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 16.8.97 has given a clear finding that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1.1.46 and not 1.1.36. A copy of this order has duly been endorsed to the Standing Counsel, District Inspector of Schools, Manager, Committee of Management of the Institution and the petitioner. The petitioner has accordingly placed a copy of this order alongwith the application for interim directions. The Committee of Management, District Inspector of Schools or the Principal, none have filed any objection to the said, till date. In these circumstances this writ petition is liable to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 24.8.96 contained in Annexure -1 by which the petitioner was treated to have been superannuated with effect from 31.12.95 is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner on his post treating him to be in service continuously without break. He shall be entitled to full salary including the arrears as also the current salary. It is further directed that in case the Management creates any problem or difficulty relating to the petitioner to join the post it shall be the duty of the District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of Education to ensure the compliance of this order and they shall forthwith permit the petitioner to join in their office. ;