IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 9 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 31458 of 2025 SMT SUMAN BAI PAL Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shakti Kumar Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 14.07.2025 contained in Annexure P/8.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is a superannuated "Aganwadi Karyakarta" who is disputing her date of birth, on the strength of which, she stood superannuated vide order dated 04.01.2023 contained in Annexure P/4. It is contended by the counsel that the petitioner was issued a notice to appear before the Medical Board and submitted a certificate in order to ascertain her age. The said certificate was submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 and the age of the petitioner on the date of issuance of certificate i.e. 02.08.2022 was found to be between 55-60 years. However, the said certificate was not accepted by the respondent vide Annexure P/1 dated 27.09.2022. Later on, petitioner was confronted with an order dated 04.01.2023 (Annexure P/4) and in the said order it was mentioned that in the school records the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 01.05.1959 and accordingly, she was directed to be superannuated vide this order dated 04.01.2023 contained in Annexure P/4. Petitioner had assailed the said order by filing a petition before this Court vide W.P.No.2250/2023. The said writ petition came up for consideration before the Lok Adalat, in which, the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to prefer a representation afresh. After withdrawal of the petition, petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.05.2025 contained in Annexure P/7. The said representation has been rejected vide order impugned dated 14.07.2025 contained in Annexure P/8. It is contended by the counsel that it is a case where as per direction of the respondent, only the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and certificate contained in Annexure P/2 was issued. However, the same certificate has not been accepted by the respondent concerned.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State contends that no change in date of birth is permissible at the fag end of service career. The petitioner has not brought on record any documents to demonstrate that the petitioner made any effort during her service career to demonstrate that her date of birth was not 01.05.1959 which was mentioned in the scholar register.

4. Having considered the submissions, a perusal of the records reflects that the petitioner herein was confronted with an order dated 04.01.2023 contained in Annexure P/4 which stipulates as under:-

"कायाल(cid:4) य (cid:6)जला काय(cid:8)(cid:4) म अिधकार(cid:14) के प(cid:17) (cid:8)मांक 15/मबा(cid:20)व/2022-23 हरदा (cid:24)दनांक 04/01/2023 के आदेश अनुसार (cid:6)जला िश(cid:30)ा अिधकार(cid:14) हरदा के 491 (cid:8)मांक 6270 (cid:24)दनांक 30/12/2022 म(cid:31) (cid:32)ीमती सुमनपाल आंगनबाड(cid:14) कायक(cid:4) ता (cid:4) (cid:37)ाम मिनयाखेड(cid:14) क(cid:39) (cid:40)धान पाठक शासक(cid:39)य क(cid:42)या (cid:40)ाथिमक शाला सोडलपुर से दा(cid:6)खल पंजी (cid:8)मांक 301 पर दज(cid:4) ज(cid:42)म ितिथ क(cid:39) जानकार(cid:14) (cid:40)(cid:45)तुत क(cid:39) है। इसके अनुसार (cid:32)ीमती सुमन (cid:20)पता (cid:32)ी ग(cid:31)दालाल क(cid:39) दा(cid:6)खल खा(cid:49)रज पंजी

अनुसार ज(cid:42)म ितिथ 01/05/1959 है।

अत: (cid:32)ीमती सुमनपाल क(cid:39) आयु 62 वष (cid:4) से अिधक होने पर (cid:32)ीमती सुमनपाल को त(cid:51)काल (cid:40)भाव से सेवािन(cid:53)(cid:54) (cid:24)कया

जाता है।"

5. The said order was assailed by the petitioner by filing a petition before this Court vide W.P.No.2250/2023. However, later on, the said writ petition was withdrawn, therefore, order dated 04.01.2023 contained in Annexure P/4 has already attained finali