Girish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 7.2.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing an application made by the respondent for correction of her age and directing the appellant authority to record the date of birth of the respondent as 4.5.1939 in the place and instead of 10.10.1933 and further directing the appellant authority to allow the respondent to continue in service on the basis of the corrected age till 4-5-1999. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this instant appeal. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows : The respondent was appointed as a Class-IV staff by Midnapore Collegiate Girls' High School in the year 1967. The case of the petitioner is that no Service Book was prepared. A notice was hung up on the notice board on 2.7.1990 by the school authority requiring the teaching and non-teaching staff of the concerned school to declare their respective age for recording the same in the Service Book. The respondent alleges that in pursuance of such notice, she submitted an application dated 24.8.1990, enclosing on 22.8.1990 together with a School Leaving Certificate dated 3.4.1986, to the school authority for the purpose of recording her age. She alleges that it would appear from the said School Leaving Certificate that her date of birth is 4.5.1939. Her case is that inspite of declaration of age made by her neither was any Service Book opened nor any copy of the Service Book was provided to her inspite of repeated requests. She added that the school authority refused to act on the basis of the age declared by her and insisted upon production of the primary final pass certificate along with an affidavit stating that the horoscope submitted earlier by her was false. She denies to have submitted any horoscope at any point of time for recording her date of birth. She alleges that the date of birth which had already been recorded by the school authority was without her knowledge. Her case is that without considering her representation the school authority by its letter dated 15.9.1993 proposed to superannuate her with effect from 10.10.1993. She has, therefore, prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the school authority to record her date of birth as 4.5.1939 and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the school authority not to give any effect to the letter dated 15.9.1993. The writ petition was filed on or about 5.10.1993. Upon application being moved an order dated 5.10.1993 was passed directing that the superannuation of the respondent would abide by the result of the writ petition.
(2.) The school authority in its affidavit-in-opposition has contends that the school was established in the year 1967 and was recognised as a High School in the year. 1970 with effect from 11.4.1969. The respondent joined the school as a Class-IV staff in the year 1967 but her status was redesignated as a Matron on and from the date of recognition of the school, that is to say, with effect from 11.4.1969. The respondent at the time of joining the post of Matron declared her date of birth to be 10.10.1933 on the basis of a horoscope produced by her. The school authority, for the purpose of seeking approval of the appointment of the respondent as a Matron of the school, adopted a resolution dated 12.2.1973 and forwarded the necessary papers to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Midnapore wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was stated to be 10.10.1933 on the aforesaid basis of the declaration made by the respondent. A copy of the document appearing to be based on horoscope submitted by the respondent and attested by the then Headmistress of the school on 17.5.1973, a copy of the resolution dated 22.2..1973 of the Managing Committee duly signed by the members and certified by the headmistress, a copy of the particulars seeking approval of the appointment of the respondent recording 10.10.1933 to be the date of birth of the respondent submitted on 17.3.1973, a copy of a letter addressed by Life Insurance Corporation of India to the Headmistress stating that the date of birth of the respondent according to their records was 10.10.1933, a copy of the voter list dated 1.7.1987 showing that the respondent was approximately 54 years old as on 1.7.1987 were disclosed by the school authority in support of its refusal to accede to the request of the respondent. The school authority has denied that any notice was issued on or about 2.7.1990 or on any other date requiring the teaching and the non-teaching staff to declare their respective age.
(3.) The contention of the school authority is that the correction of age sought for by the respondent on the basis of her alleged School Leaving Certificate was not found convincing. The admission register of the concerned school which had issued the School Leaving Certificate to the respondent was examined by the Sub-Inspector of Schools who was of the view that there were some variations in the register leaving scope for suspicion. The result of the aforesaid verification was communicated to the school by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) by a letter dated 6.8.1993, a copy whereof has also been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition.;