GUPTA, J. — The petitioner entered the service of the Municipal Board, Phalodi in the district of Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") as an Accounts Clerk on April 8, 1954. The date of birth of the petitioner as entered in his service book was August 31, 1919. The petitioner continued to work in the service of the Board as an Upper Division Clerk and subsequently as officiating Executive Officer of the Board. According to the petitioner, an anonymous complaint was made against him before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi on September 13, 1972 on which the aforesaid officer made an inquiry and as a result thereof he came to the conclusion that August 31, 1919 was the correct date of birth of the petitioner and further that there was no reason to doubt the entry made in respect thereof in the service record of the petitioner. A copy of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phalodi dated Decembers, 1972 rejecting the complaint filed in this respect has been produced as Ex. 1.

2. The petitioner however, received an order from the Chairman of the Board on December 16, 1972 to the effect that he was retired from the secvice of the Board from that very day, as he had attained the age of superannuation. The petitioners case is that if the date of birth of the petitioner, as entered in his service record, was taken into consideration then the petitioner would have attained the age of Superannuation, namely 55 years, on August 31, 1974 and he could not have been superannuated on December 16, 1972. The petitioner made a representation in this respect to the Board. The Board in its meeting dated January 5, 1973 directed the petitioner to produce his Matriculation certificate. A suggestion, made by one of the members of the Board in the aforesaid meeting that the petitioner may be allowed to produce any other evidence that he may like to produce in respect of his date of birth, was not accepted. As the petitioner was unable to produce a copy of his Matriculation certificate, the Board by its subsequent resolution dated November 30, 1973 confirmed the order passed by the Chairman of the Board on December 16, 1972 accepting the date entered in the School Leaving Certificate namely, October 1, 1917 as the correct date of birth of the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that the writ petition, as originally presented in this Court, did not challenge the last mentioned order passed by the Board on November 30, 1973, but it was subsequently amended and the order passed by the Chairman of the Board dated December 16, 1972 and the resolution passed by the Board dated November 30, 1973 both are now sought to be quashed in this writ petition.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Joshi is that the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in his service record namely, August 31, 1919 was duly verified by the then Secretary and Chairman of the Board on June 21, 1962 and the Board could not have altered the date of birth entered in the petitioners service record, without furnishing the petitioner an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed alternation in the entry relating to the date of birth in his service book. According to the petitioners learned counsel, the Chairman of the Board and for that matter even the Board did not give any notice to the petitioner of its intention to alter the date of the birth, as entered in the petitioners service book nor the petitioner was made aware of any material in the possession of the Board relating to the date of birth of the petitioner. On these grounds it is urged that the retirement of the petitioner from the service of the Board before he attained the age of 55 years and without making any correction in the date of his birth, as entered in the service book maintained by the Board, was against the principles of natural justice, as also the provisions of the relevant rules applicable to the petitioner.

4. Mr. Mridul appearing for the Board contended that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document