The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order cannot be quashed solely on the ground of a violation of the principle of natural justice unless prejudice is caused. Additionally, the court highlighted the principle that a petition for a change of date of birth at the end of a service career cannot be entertained.

ORDER : – This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :

(i) That, impugned order Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed. (ii) That respondents be directed to take the date of birth as mentioned initially at the time of appointment and all subsequent changes be held illegal. (iii) That, any other relief which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the date of birth of petitioner No. 1 was recorded as 15-3-1961, whereas the date of birth of petitioner No. 2 was recorded as 28-5-1965 in their service books. It appears that both the petitioners were directed to undergo a medical examination and accordingly, the date of birth of petitioner No. 1 was changed to 15-3-1958, whereas the date of birth of petitioner No. 2 was changed as 28-5-1958. It is submitted that both the petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground after the death of their husbands. The petitioners were illiterate. By the impugned order dated 16-11-2022, they have been informed that they would stand retired with effect from the afternoon of 30-11-2022 after attaining the age of 62 years. In fact the petitioners have not attained the age of 62 years and they are being retired pre-maturely. It is further submitted that in case of change of date of birth, the respondents should have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners which has not been given to them, therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be quashed. To substantiate his submission, counsel for petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case Shankar Lal vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. and ors., dated 20-4-2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2858/2022 and the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhan Singh Bhadoria vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2002(3) M.P.L.J. 195 as well as the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of P. Pochamma vs. Principal Secretary, reported in 2004(4) ALT 156.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is submitted that he is in possession of original service books of both the petitioners. In fact the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands. The petitioner No. 1 has not filed her complete service book whereas the petitioner No. 2 has not filed her service book at all. The service book of both the petitioners contain a medical certificate which has been certified by Medical Board. Petitioners were directed to undergo medical examination and on the basis of age assessed by the Medical Board, the date of birth in their service books were changed. Even otherwise, petitioners have already attained the age of 62 years.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is true that only the petitioner No. 1 has filed few pages of service book whereas petitioner No. 2 has not filed the copy of her service book at all. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner No. 1 is in possession of her service book. The original service book of petitioners have been provided for perusal of this Court and both the service books contain the medical certificate given by the District Invalidating and Medical Board Gwalior. According to said certificate, the age of petitioners No. 1 and 2 was assessed as 42 years on their own disclosure and petitioner No. 1 had LMP on 5-5-2020 whereas the petitioner No. 2 had LMP on 20-4-2020. Both the certificates were issued in the year 2020. Further both the petitioners were granted appointment on compassionate ground after the death of their husbands. As per the service book, the petitioner No. 1 had two children aged about 11 years and 10 years on the date of her appointment. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed by order dated 6-11-1987. Thus, it is clear that petitioner No. 1 was having two children aged about 11 and 10 years on 6-11-1987. Even assuming that the petitioner No. 1 got m