UMA DAS GUPTA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point in this writ petition is whether it was open to the respondents to change or alter the date of birth of the petitioner, being 9.4.1930, once accepted by the respondents in the year 1964 at the time of appointment, to 24th May, 1922 without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The impugned communications are Annexures 1 and 13 dated 26.4.80 and 27.5.80, respectively, which are sought to be quashed. The writ petition has been filed on 17.7.80. The petitioner claims that her date of birth is 9.4.1930 and it was so recorded at the time of her appointment on the 25th of February, 1964. On 1st February, 1978, the Inspectress of Schools called for the Service Book of the petitioner (Annexure 8). On 14th March, 1978, the Inspectress of Schools enquired (Annexure 7) from the Principal as to why the date of birth of the petitioner had been changed from 9.4.1930 to 24.5.1922.. The Principal replied on 1.9.1978 (Annexure 9) that no document was available to the change of age of the petitioner in the service book. On 1.9.1978 the petitioner enquired from the Inspectress of Schools as to why her date of birth in the service record had been tempered. She further stated in her representation that she had not read in any school. At the time of her appointment she had produced the medical certificates of the Civil Surgeon and on that basis her age was recorded. Having not received any reply, the petitioner sent a reminder on 25.4.80 (Annexure 11). One day thereafter the Inspectress of Schools wrote to the Principal that the date of birth of the petitioner should be treated as 24.5.1922 (Annexure 1). The petitioner filed a representation against the said communication on 19.5.80 (Annexure 12) stating that she had been under previous employment and her age had been changed without any show cause and opportunity. It appears that the said representation was disposed of by the authorities by communication dated 27.5.80 by the principal to the petitioner (Annexure 13) that her date of birth would be treated as 24.5.1922 and, therefore, she had to retire on 31.5.1980. The petitioner has annexed to this petition certificates of two Civil Surgeons of Purnia, one dated 26.4.58 (Annexure 2) and the other dated 9.4.64 (Annexure 3) by another Civil Surgeon, which support the age recorded in the service book.

(2.) From the writ petition it further appears that on 10.6.67 the then Principal of the School wrote to the Inspectress of Schools that the age of the petitioner had been recorded on the basis of the medical certificates of age and health but she had come to learn from one of the teachers that the age of the petitioner in the same school when she had studied was recorded as 24.5.1922. The Principal, therefore, suggested to the Inspectress of Schools that her date of birth should be altered. The Inspectress of Schools by her letter dated 21.6.1967 (Annexure 5) wrote to the Principal that the age of the petitioner should be treated as 24.5.1922. This was communicated to the petitioner by the Principal on 26.2.76 (Annexure 6). It appears that this communication led to the filing of some representation by the petitioner and, therefore, the service record was called for by the Inspectress of Schools on 14.3.1978 (Annexure 8) and the matter was finally disposed of vide Annexures '1' and '13' in the months of April and May, 1980.

(3.) The respondents have not filed counter -affidavit and, therefore, the facts stated in the writ petition are uncontroverted.