Before effecting any direct or indirect change in the date of birth of an employee recorded in the service book, a notice and an opportunity of hearing must be given to the employee.

1. The petitioner has authorised Shri Srinath Sharma to argue his case because according to the petitioner, his counsel has thought it proper to abstain from the Court. Whether the learned counsel for the petitioner has discharged his ethical or legal obligation towards his client is a matter which I leave to him to decide but absence of the Counsel is no ground whatsoever for the Court to postpone decision of the cases. For this reason, I have allowed representative of the petitioner to argue the case.

2. Petitioner, who joined service in the Rehabilitation Department at Alwar has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 9.10.91 (Annex. 6) issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest retiring him from service.

3. Petitioner has come out with the case that his date of birth is May 30, 1935. He was initially employed in the Rehabilitation Department. Subsequently he was transferred to Forest Department. His Service Book was prepared in the Forest Department. His date of birth came to be recorded as May 30, 1935 and it was duly verified by the competent authority. In the seniority list of the Foresters issued on 29.2.80 by the Chief Conservator of Forest, name of the petitioner has been shown at serial No. 47 and against his name date of birth has been shown as 30th May, 1935. According to the petitioner, the Dy. Conservator of Forest cum- Dy. Director (Core Area) Tiger Project Ramthambhore, district Sawai-Modhopur had directed the petitioner to appear before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest at Jaipur on 9.10.91 and also to produce before him Middle Pass Certificate. On that very date, the petitioner submitted a letter to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur, indicating that he is not in a position to produce Middle Certificate. He however, gave out that he may be producing the Certificate given by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. The petitioner says that he appeared before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and submitted that his date of birth has been duly recorded as 30th May 1935 and that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest had no authority to make change in his date of birth in view of the provision contained in Rule 8(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as it stands after amendment made by notification dated, 24.1.79. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest thereafter issued impugned order retiring the petitioner from service on the basis of his conclusion that according to the year of birth of the petitioner, namely 1931 or 1933 he should have retired much earlier.

4. Among other pleas, the petitioner has stated that before passing the impugned order the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest had not given any notice to him proposing a change in his date of birth from May 30, 1935 and no opportunity of hearing was given to him. On that basis, the petitioner has submitted that action taken by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest is contrary to the basic principles of natural justice and is therefore, liable to be declared as void.

5. In their reply, respondents have pleaded that in different documents the petitioner has given out his year of birth differently. At the time of appointment in the year 1949 he has been shown to be 18 years of age. In the applications submitted by him in the years 1952 and 1956 he has given his year of birth to be 1933. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioner was ineligible to be appointed in public employment in the year 1949 with reference to year of birth as 1935 because, no person below 18 years of age was eligible to be employed in Government service.

6. Respondents have further pleaded that the petitioner had sufficient notice of the intention of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to effect a change in his date of birth. The petitioner was fully aware of the correct position and therefore, no prejudice has been suffered by him.

7. Respondents have placed before the Court a number