AJIT KUMAR SINHA, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred against an order dated 6.2.2002. whereby, the respondents have held that the date of birth of the petitioner, as entered in the Pre -employment Medical Report Service Book, is 1.7.1946. The petitioner has also prayed for treating his date of birth as 5.1.1948.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, as stated by the petitioner are set out as under: The petitioner was appointed as Pantry Clerk on 1.9.1964 and was later on promoted to the post of Canteen Manager. According to him, in column 6 of the School Leaving Certificate his date of birth was mentioned as 5.1.1948. He has also stated that even in the Service Book, his date of birth was written as 5.1.1948. According to the petitioner, when he came to know about the illegal entry with regard to the date of birth, as entered in the Pre -employment Medical Report Service Book (1.7.1946), he filed a representation on 4.10.2001 for correction of his date of birth. Thereafter, the respondent -Corporation vide its Office Order No. PF -19638 FFP -229 dated 6.2.2002 communicated the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of Pre -employment Medical Report i.e. 1.7.1946. On 13.8.2001 a representation was made by the petitioner to the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the respondent -Corporation for correcting his date of birth. The petitioner thereafter filed this writ petition, challenging the order dated 6.2.2002. The respondents have submitted that the order dated 6.2.2002 was not an order of declaration of his date of birth instead it was a reply to the representation dated 13.8.2001. The respondents further state that the date of birth of the petitioner was already determined at the time of initial appointment in the Corporation, which was 1.7.1946 and the same has been recorded in his service records. According to them, the date of birth of the petitioner was based on Pre -employment Medical Examination Report and the same was assessed by the doctors at the time of initial appointment, fixing his date of birth as 1.7.1946 in accordance with Clause 40 of the Standing Order. According to the respondents, the petitioner was to retire on 30.6.2004 after completing 58 years of age, which was the age of superannuation. It has also been stated that there was no evidence of any change in the date of birth at any point of time nor there was any allegation of tampering the entries made in the service records and other documents. I have also been informed that a Title Suit was also filed by the petitioner in the year, 1989 itself, which was dismissed for default in the year 1994.
(3.) HAVING heard the arguments at length, the contention raised by the petitioner seems to be incorrect and unsustainable for the sole reason that the office order dated 6.2.2002 was in response to the petitioner's letter/application dated 13.8.2001. The letter dated 6.2.2002 was neither a declaration nor an order, changing the date of birth of the petitioner. The same was only indicative of the fact that his date of birth was already recorded as 1.7.1946, based on the Pre -employment Medical Examination Report, which was authentic and could not be changed. In view of the settled law, even otherwise the writ petition is not maintainable for correction of date of birth at the fag end of service career when the petitioner was due to superannuate within a period of two years. The petitioner is further guilty of suppressing the very material fact that he had preferred Title Suit No. 44 of 1989 for the same relief for declaration of his date of birth as 5.1.1948 and the same was dismissed for default on 15.7.1994 and no step for restoration was taken.;