VYAS, J. - (1.) BY the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the office order dated 5. 11. 1996 (Annexure 6) may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner as per law and further, correct the date of birth of the petitioner in his service record from 3. 1. 1934 to 6. 6. 1936. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents may be directed to treat the petitioner as retired in accordance with the correct age only and further more, the respondents may be directed to give all the due benefits flowing therefrom to the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to the instant petition, are that by order dated 22. 8. 1952 (Annexure 1), the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Education Department. The petitioner passed the High School Examination in the year, 1952 and the Certificate of High School issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, was delivered to the petitioner on 6. 7. 1953. It is further averred by the petitioner in the instant petition that vide order dated 22. 8. 1952, the petitioner was asked to submit two certificates regarding his goods moral character issued by the two Gazetted Officers and the petitioner submitted his Transfer Certificate/scholar's Register, containing all details. One certificate contains his date of birth as 6. 6. 1936 and in another certificate dated 29. 8. 1952, issued by the First Class Magistrate, his date of birth was shown as 3. 1. 1934. According to the petitioner, it was mentioned inadvertently by the First Class Magistrate and on this basis, his wrong date of birth was recorded in the service book. It is also averred by the petitioner in the instant petition that in the year 1959, there were certain vacancies of LDCs in the Soil Conservation Office, Agriculture Department, Jodhpur. The petitioner submitted his application through proper channel for the same by mentioning his date of birth as 6. 6. 1936. Thereafter, as soon as the petitioner came to know about the said inadvertent mistake in his service record, he filed a number of representations to make good the said error. Ultimately, he filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5009/1991 before this Court, which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 9. 8. 1996 with the following observations:- "the correction of the date of birth is indeed a matter which pertains to disputed question of fact. The Apex Court has time and again by numerous decisions deprecated the practice of resorting to the correction of age at the fag end of the career in respect of a government servant, but then the writ petition has stated the circumstances under which it was not possible for him to make a representation earlier. At least his representation dated April 30, 1991 has not as yet been considered by the Director on merits. The only relief available to the present petitioner would be that his representation should be considered on merits by the Director of Agriculture within a period of three months from this date and an appropriate speaking order should be passed thereupon. In case the Director thinks that the writ petition has rightly been superannuated from service on January 31, 1992, his retiral benefits should be paid to him at least within a period of three months from the date of the passing of the order by the Director concerned. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. " In compliance with the order of this Court dated 9. 8. 1996 the Department considered and rejected the representations of the petitioner vide order dated 5. 11. 1996 (Annexure 6) on the following three grounds:- " (a) By virtue of Rule 8 (2) (a) which says that all those persons who were in employment of the State Government as on 1. 1. 1979, date of birth as recorded in service book shall be considered as correct, irrespective of any authority of which it was entered. (b) As per Rule 8 (2) © age of the employees, who do their matric during service, will be considered as per the service book only. © Every employee gets one chance in a year to assess his service book in the same manner, the present petitioner also got a chance to go through his service book, but he did not file any application for correction of his date of birth. " It is averred by the petitioner in the instant petition that the reasons given by the respondent-department for rejecting the representations of the petitioner are arbitrary and perverse to the facts and laws. The first reason assigned by the Agriculture Department was Rule 8 (2) (a) of the Rajasthan Services Rules. This rule was struck down in the year, 1985 by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court. The second reason assigned by the Department was Rule 8 (2) ©of the Rajasthan Service Rules. This rule is not applicable to the petitioner as he had already cleared his High School Examination at the time of joining the service. The third reason assigned by the Department is that every employee gets one chance in a year to assess his service book, the petitioner also got the same chance, but he did not file any application for correction of his date of birth. On 3. 12. 1996, the petitioner sent a representation to the Agriculture Department, requesting for review of their earlier order dated 5. 11. 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner filed various representations to the Authorities of the Agriculture Department, as well as the former and present Chief Minister, but no heed was paid to his case.
(3.) THUS, being aggrieved by the order dated 5. 11. 1996 (Annexure 6) passed by the Agriculture Department, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner produced his Scholar's Register/school Leaving Certificate for the perusal of the Authorities at the time of appointment, in which his date of birth was mentioned as 6. 6. 1936. Notwithstanding this certificate, the Department entered a wrong date of birth in the service book, on the basis of a character certificate. There is no rule of entering the date of birth in the service record on the basis of a character certificate. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier, the petitioner did not have any idea of the mistake regarding his date of birth, but as soon as he came to know about the wrong date of birth, he mentioned his correct age in various communications, but despite that, his date of birth was not corrected by the Department, for the reasons best known to them. ;