1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3938/2007. (SAGAT SINGH VS. STATE & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 23.04.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. P.R. Singh for the petitioner. Mrs. R.R. Kanwar for the respondents. By this petition for writ, validity of the order dated 11.06.2007 issued by Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jaisalmer is questioned, whereby the petitioner has been retired from service by determining his age as per the recommendations made by the Medical Board. The noticeable facts of the case are that the petitioner entered in the services of the respondents being appointed as Beldar on 01.04.1990 and semi permanent status was conferred to him on 01.04.1992. The date of birth of the petitioner at the time of appointment of the petitioner was recorded as 21.07.1951. The same was also accepted by the respondents in a list of the workmen as per Rule 77 of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. The respondents subsequently constituted a Medical Board and in opinion of that the age of the petitioner was of about 57 years. Acting upon the 2 recommendations made by the Medical Board, the order impugned retiring the petitioner was passed on 11.07.2007. While challenging the order aforesaid, the contention advanced is that no authority was available with the respondents to change the date of birth unilaterally. This Court examined the issue aforesaid in a petition of similar nature being SBCWP No.3746/2006 (Smt. Bheera vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) decided on 06.10.2006 and held as follows:- “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 3 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. In the instant matter also, a vague opinion is given by the Medical Board and as such the unilateral change in the date of birth of the petitioner is highly unjust. The petition for writ is allowed accordingly and the order impugned dated 11.07.2007 retiring the petitioner from service is hereby declared illegal and, therefore, the same is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and to treat 21.07.1951 as his date of birth. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/