IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6221 of 2007 NAWAL KISHORE THAKUR, Son of Late Braj Kishore Thakur, Resident of Village Korthu, P.S. Ghanshyampur, District Darbhanga. Versus 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY Bodh Gaya, Distt. Gaya. 2. Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya. 3. The Principal, A.N.College, Boring Road, Patna-13. ----------- 2 6.10.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Magadh University, this Court is of the considered opinion that the following relief as prayed by the petitioner in this writ application:- “(i)To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Assistant till 31.1.2008 the actual date of his superannuation from the service. (ii)To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for declare null and void the retirement of the petitioner from the service with effect from 31.1.2006 by the respondent Principal as it is premature and illegal. (iii)To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to accord arrear of salary for the period for which petitioner has not been allowed to work due to pre-mature and illegal retirement.” cannot be allowed by this Court, inasmuch as, the date of entry in the service of the petitioner is shrouded in mystery. The claim of the petitioner on the basis of extract of opening any service book (Annexure- 1) that his date of joining should be treated as 5.4.1976, in fact, is based on a wholly unauthenticated and incomplete document. Annexure- 1 is a photo copy of allegedly first and the date of joining and the date of retirement. 2 This document claiming no signature of any authorized person muchless Head of the office, its photo copy does not inspire confidence. Leaf or cover page of Service book which mentions his name, designation, name of College and date of his joining and date of retirement but in absence of any signature of the Head of the office over it, the same containing such entries in three different handwriting cannot be held to be authentic document specially when its original also is not in possession of the petitioner and could not be produced by him before this Court in course of hearing of this case. Annexure-1 therefore in isolation cannot be relied for deciding the date of his first appointment in the Service of affiliated College. The petitioner next relies on the document described to be another service book which has apparently been opened on the date of his retirement i.e. 31.1.2006 and bears signature of the same Principal who was in office on 31.1.2006. In view of the fact, the entire second service book seems to be opened on the date of retirement recording the events of his service including leave taken by the petitioner in his service period this document also cannot be an authentic documentary proof of petitioner of his being appointed in the College on 5.4.1976. As is well known, even in an affiliated College in which the petitioner was so appointed there was a Governing Body which had taken a decision to appoint the petitioner and such appointment had to be made by issuing an appointment letter, but 3 the petitioner has withheld his aforesaid appointment letter issued by the Governing Body of the College. In such a situation, this Court in absence of any documentary proof would not be in a position to hold that the petitioner was appointed in the College on a non-teaching post w.e.f. 5.4.1976. Once this Court would not be in a position to hold that appointment of the petitioner was initially made on 5.4.1976 it would be also not in a position to apply the judgment of this Court in the case of „Shri Niwas Dubey Vs. State of Bihar‟ reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 279 in the case of the petitioner, because this Court in the aforesaid judgment while interpreting the provisions of section 67 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 had taken the date of its commencement of the Act on 16.5.1977 to be the dividing line for superannuation of non teaching employees while holding that only such non teaching employees had a right to continue in service up to the age of 62 years who were admittedly appointed prior to 16.5.1977. There being however no proof in the case of petitioner to show that his actual appointment in the affiliated College was made prior to 16.5.1977, this Court would also not find any anomaly in making him to superannuate with effect from 31.1.2006, inasmuch as, other non teaching employees appointed after 16.7.1977 had to retire from service on allowing age of 60 years. The plea of the petitioner that the petitioner was never informed or given a notice prior to his retirement has to be also 4 only noted for its being rejected. The date of superannuation recorded in his alleged service book itself shows that his retirement date was 31st January, 2006. If the petitioner was knowing about such retirement right from beginning of his service and did not choose to approach the authority at any time before his retirement and in fact had filed this writ application on 11.5.2007 questioning his such retirement w.e.f. 31.1.2006, this Court must hold that such challenge of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. That being so, this application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)