Navaniti Prasad Singh, J - (1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Annexure-1, the order of the Inspector of Colleges, B N Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura dated 02.01.1998 by which petitioner has been informed that the Vice Chancellor has been pleased to order the superannuation of the petitioner with effect from 01st January, 1998 on the ground that the date of birth, as entered in her service book showing it to be 23.12.1940, appeared to be wrong in view of the date of birth shown by her in her application for admission to College for her B A Course wherein it was shown as 23.12.1934. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner, on completion of her studies, became Lecturer in M J M Mahila College, Katihar in the year, 1962. In due course of time, the College became constituent College and, on formation of B N Mandal University, fell under the B N Mandal University. In 1972, she was confirmed by the College Service Commission as the Principal of the said College and in due course of time, with effect from 03.01.1982, she was designated as Professor by the University on approval of the College Service Commission. It is not in dispute that the petitioner?s service book, as was originally opened, showed her date of birth as 23.12.1940. In 1996, the University started a general enquiry into verification of date of birth. The petitioner submitted affidavit of her father, certificates from the School from where she did her Higher Secondary as also the original marksheet of Higher Secondary clearly pointing out that as per practice prevalent, when she was in School, date of birth of female candidates were not shown on the certificate.
(2.) However, the School maintained the record and the School duly certified her date of birth as 23.12.1940. She was then confronted with allegedly her application for admission to College for B A Course in which her date of birth was written as 23.12.1934. Petitioner contested the correctness of that document by pointing out that the date of birth column there was filled in a different ink and was not her. University sent the same for forensic examination which reported that it was in her own handwriting. Thus, based on the said finding, the aforesaid letter was issued on 02.01.1998 retiring her with effect from 01st January, 1998. The question is whether this action is justified or not. In my view, the fact remains that petitioner produced documents appertaining to her School education and showing her date of birth as 23.12.1940. She relies on the service book in which her date of birth is recorded as 23.12.1940. For all purposes, that was not date of birth taken into account throughout her career. Now at the end of her career, to change her date of birth would not be reasonable much less based on a singular application which is disputed. How this came to the knowledge of the University, who brought it to the knowledge of the University, remains a question when petitioner had long before, based on School records and other records got the service book opened with her date of birth as 23.12.1940. In my view, at this late stage even if the date of birth in the service book was wrongly entered should not have been interfered with. Petitioner joined as Lecturer on strength of her date of birth as 23.12.1940 way back in the year, 1962. The University all along treated her date of birth as 23.12.1940. In that view of the matter, changing the date of birth at the end of her career by the University cannot be accepted. Annexure-1 is, accordingly, set aside.
(3.) By interim orders passed earlier, this Court had directed petitioner to accept her retirement as per Annexure-1 without prejudice to her rights.;