SANJAY MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vivek Rai Advocate holding brief of Sri G.K. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
(2.) THE petitioner claims to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in an educational institution run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Maharajganj (respondent No. 2) and is aggrieved by the order dated 24.1.2000 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) whereby it has been ordered that the salary paid to the petitioner for the period 30.6.1994 to 30.6.1998 is to be recovered from his retiral dues on the ground that the date of birth entered in his service record as 16.9.1937 ought to have been 16.9.1933. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had not made any application for correction of his date of birth. At the time when the petitioner was given employment in the year 1958 as an untrained teacher, he had filed his Junior High School certificate which indicated his date of birth as 16.9.1937 and accordingly, he has worked and has been retired on 30.6.1998 by giving the benefit of continuing till the end of the academic session. He states that the impugned order has been passed on the complaint of some person and it has been recorded that at the time when the petitioner was given employment in the year 1953 he could not have attained the age of majority. According to him, such finding recorded in the impugned order is patently erroneous since the petitioner was given appointment as an untrained teacher in the year 1958. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and others v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, 2005 (2) LBESR 602, in support of his contention.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel has defended the impugned order by saying that if the petitioner had passed his Junior High School in the year 1952 and he was given employment in the year 1953, it is quite apparent that the petitioner was a minor and could not have been taken in service. He refers to paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit to say that the petitioner was appointed in 1953 and not in 1958.;