The matriculation certificate is admissible as evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act to determine an individual's date of birth, and the alteration of retirement age without providing an opportunity to the affected person is a breach of the principles of natural justice.

A. K. Ganguly, J.

1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner for challenging the order dated 10th December, 1990 communicated to the petitioner under the signature of the Acting registrar, Magadh University, Bodh gaya. There are also some more prayers relating to payment of salary and allowances etc.

2. The main dispute is over the date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioners claim is that his date of birth should be 7th January, 1929 and the contention of the University is that 7th January, 1926 should be treated as the date of birth of the petitioner. In support of his claim the petitioner has relied upon an affidavit affirmed by his father, whereas, in support of the claim of the University they are relying on the age of the petitioner as recorded in his matriculation certificate.

3. It is obvious that the aforesaid dispute is factual in nature, and for correct decision of the said dispute the validity of the claim raised by the petitioner must be examined.

4. The litigation has been protracted one at the instance of the parties, inasmuch as, the matter has come before this Court previously also. Reference in this connection is made to the order dated 8lh May, 1990 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a proceeding being numbered as C. W. J. C. No.2429 of 1989. In the said order passed by a Division Bench of this court, the learned Judges were of the view that alteration of the age in the service book of the petitioner without affording an opportunity to the person affected is in breach of the principles of natural justice. In that context, the learned Judges of the Division Bench were pleased to hold that the respondent University has the liberty to deal with the matter relating to the petitioners age after giving opportunity to the petitioner as required in law. Their lordships of the Division Bench were also pleased to hold that alteration of the age of the petitioner was in breach of the principles of natural justice and therefore is void ab initio. The fact that prior to the filing of the writ petition the petitioner has made a representation to the Chancellor and the same is pending, would not stand in the way of the Courts granting relief to the petitioner as their lordships were of the view that the impugned order of alteration of the age of the petitioner is per seillegal.

5. Thereafter, a contempt proceeding was initiated which was numbered as m. J. C. No.602 of 1990. Ultimately, the matter was heard in presence of the petitioner in terms of the directions given by this Court in C. W. J. C. No.2429 of 1989. The order passed by the Vice Chancellor after hearing the petitioner has been disclosed in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent-University. The said order is dated 6th December, 1990. In the said counter affidavit it has been stated that the order dated 6th December, 1990 is the full text of the order and the summary thereof has been communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-1. The said order dated 6th December, 1990 was placed before this Court and the Court has perused the same.

6. In the order it has been stated that the petitioner was to retire on 31st January, 1986 as per statute which is applicable at the material time after reaching the age of 60 years in view of date of birth dated 7th January, 1926 recorded in the matriculation certificate.

7. From a perusal of the said order it appears that pursuant to the order of the Patna High Court dated 8th May, 1990 passed in C. W. J. C. No.2429 of 1989 a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner asking him to explain why the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the matriculation certificate as 7th January, 1926 should not be accepted. Pursuant to that, show-cause, the petitioner filed a reply. In the said reply to the showcause, the petitioner also prayed for a personal hearing and wanted to file some documents to explain the matter. Thereafter, a date of personal hearing was fixed and on tha