Smt. Jamna vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—While employing the Petitioner as Kuli on 5.11.1988, his date of birth was entered as 5.4.1958 in service records. On 1.4.1993 semi-permanent status was conferred to the Petitioner and regular pay-scale was granted to her.

By an office order dated 3.7.2002, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, World Food Programme, Jaisalmer by relying upon some medical opinion, changed the date of birth of the Petitioner in her service record from 5.4.1958 to 19.3.1945. Under the order dated 3.7.2002, a direction was also given to the Petitioner to submit explanation regarding wrong insertion of date of birth in the service record.

The Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation asserting her date of birth as 5.4.1958 only. She also stated that no definite date of birth can be prescribed by a routine medical check up. The Petitioner was subsequently placed at the disposal of Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur on being declared surplus in the Department of Forest. Her services were absorbed with the Department of Education, however, in view of the office order dated 3.7.2002, the date of superannuation of the Petitioner has been changed, thus, this petition for writ is preferred to challenge the order dated 3.7.2002.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that no change in the date of birth entered by the Petitioner at the time of her initial appointment could have been made by the Respondents just on basis of medical opinion, that being nothing but a routine medical check up.

Per contra, as per the Respondents, a medical examination was made and the medical officer after examining the Petitioner found the age of the Petitioner quite higher than the recorded one. In view of such opinion, the date of birth was changed under the order dated 3.7.2002.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Respondents while submitting reply to the writ petition have not stated as to what was the criteria adopted by the medical officer to determine age of the Petitioner. It is really strange as to how a definite date of birth is given by a medical expert. It is pertinent to note that the Respondents under the order impugned dated 3.7.2002 changed date of birth of the Petitioner in quite mechanical manner. It appears that the date of birth of number of persons were changed and while doing so explanation was sought from the employees in a formate by keeping blanks wherever the existing date of birth was required to be mentioned and also where the changed date of birth is required to be stated. This Court while dealing with a similar kind of order in a petition of similar nature i.e. S.B. CWP No. 3746/2006 (Smt. Bheera v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) decided on 6.10.2006 held as under:

As a matter of fact the certificate given by the medical officer is a most cryptic one and it does not disclose any expertness in determining the age. It simply mentions that on basis of general appearance the age of the Petitioner appears to be 50 years on 2.11.1996. Such a recommendation of medical officer cannot be a basis for change of date of birth. The Petitioner at the time of her first appointment declared 18.12.1951 as her date of birth and nothing is available on record to disbelieve the date of birth given by the Petitioner. If the Respondents were having any doubt about genuineness of date of birth of the Petitioner then they should have given a notice to the Petitioner and only after adhering principles of natural justice a change in date of birth could have been made. The entire procedure adopted by the Respondents to change the date of birth of the Petitioner is highly unjust and arbitrary, beside in violation of principles of natural justice. By entering and acceptance of the date of birth as 18.12.1951 a valuable right accrued in favour of the Petitioner to continue in service till arriving the age of 60 years. Such a right could not be disturbed unilaterally.

The controversy involved in this petition for writ is exactly similar to the controversy adjudicated in the case of Smt. Bheera (supra). Accordingly, this petition for writ deserves acceptance, therefore, the same is allowed. The determination of date of birth of the Petitioner as 19.3.1945 by the Respondents is declared illegal. The Respondents are directed to treat the Petitioner''s date of birth as 5.4.1958 and to decide her date of superannuation accordingly. The Petitioner is entitled for all consequential relief''s also.

No order as to costs.