CW 13057/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.13057/2008 Ram Karan Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 16/12/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sandeep Saxena, for petitioner Mr. GD Bansal ) Mr. Mahesh Gupta) Addl.Govt. Advocate for respondent State Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that date of birth recorded by respondents in service book of petitioner does not tally with certificate of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Badagaon (Panchayat Samiti, Dausa) (Ann.1). Petitioner entered into service as Beldar on 01/09/73 and was declared semi-permanent and permanent from 01/01/76 & 31/08/83 respectively. According to him, his date of birth is 19/12/1954 as is evident from certificate (Ann.1) of Sarpanch. However, respondents passed an order dt. 06/08/08 retiring him w.e.f. 31/12/2008 treating his date of birth as 19/12/1948. Counsel submits that petitioner submitted certificate of Sarpanch of Panchayat Samiti (Ann.1) at the time of entry into service, which contained letters being written in Hindi words, thereby an error was committed by Assistant Engineer PWD while recording date of birth wrongly as 19/12/1948 instead of his date of birth as CW 13057/08 //2// 19/12/1954 as notified in certificate of Sarpanch ((Ann.1), it has resulted into causing prejudice to him as he is being retired from service w.e.f. 31/12/08 vide order dt.06/.08/08 (Ann.3) treating date of birth (19/12/48) wrongly recorded in his service book. Respondents have filed reply alongwith service roll (Ann.R/1), as per which date of birth of petitioner has been recorded as 19/12/1948 which being duly verified by Assistant Engineer PWD, no adverse presumption can be drawn to his date of birth (19/12/1948) recorded in service book while entry into service long back on 01/09/73. Be that as it may, all these facts involve disputed questions as regards determination of date of birth, if it does not tally with certificate submitted by petitioner (Ann.1), and if it being disputed by respondents herein. This Court is not supposed to hold roving enquiry to examine disputed facts. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby is dismissed. However, petitioner will be free to avail of remedy under law. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/13057CW08-1612.doc