- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred for correction of date of birth of the petitioner. As per respondent -University, the date of birth of the present petitioner is 9th February, 1948 and, therefore, the date of his retirement is 29th February, 2008 (being the last date of retiring month). Whereas as per petitioner, the correct date of birth is 1st October, 1953 and, hence, he ought to have been retired by the respondents on 31st October, 2013.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the annexures annexed with the petition as well as the counter affidavit, it appears that: - (i) Petitioner was employed as Gardener with the respondents and as per column 5 of Annexure 3, 25 years age is reflected in the document of the respondents, but, the counsel for the petitioner unable to point out whether this document is maintained by the respondents or not. Counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on Annexure 4 document, which reflects the date of birth of the present petitioner as 1st October, 1953. This document is maintained by the respondents and the same was issued on 13th September, 2001. (ii) It appears from Annexure -A to the counter affidavit that the Medical Officer had issued a certificate on the date of joining of the petitioner on 9th February, 1978 that the age of the petitioner was 30 years. By now, the said document is 30 years old document. (iii) Looking to Annexure -B to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents as per column 6, it appears that the date of birth of the present petitioner is 9th February, 1948. The said Annexure -B is having a photograph of the present petitioner. It is a bio - data and part of the service book, maintained by the Indian School of Mines University, Dhanbad. The said document is reflecting a thumb mark of the present petitioner. In view of these two documents, which are quite older in point of time, the present petitioner has been superannuated by the respondents on 29th February, 2008 (being the last date of retiring month). (iv) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that generally the petitioner is signing in Telugu language, but, Annexure -B to the counter affidavit is revealing thumb mark of the present petitioner, therefore, the said document is a doubtful document. This contention is not much helpful to the petitioner for getting any relief mainly for the reason that looking to the documents with the counter affidavit, it is a highly disputed question of fact involve in the present petition as stated hereinabove. 30 years old document, which is the medical certificate, reflects the age of the present petitioner as 30 years on 9th February, 1978. As per Annexure -B to the counter affidavit also, his date of birth is 9th February, 1948. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said document is a doubtful document. In this situation, evidence will be required for dispensing the doubts of the present petitioner. Counsel for the respondents has kept ready the original registration documents, maintained by the respondent -University. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I am not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India as highly disputed question of facts are involved.
(3.) THERE is no substance in this petition and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.;