IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 748 OF 2011 (S/S) Nityanand Joshi ……………..Petitioner Versus The State of Uttarakhand and another……Respondents. Present: Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel. The petitioner is an employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital. He has filed this writ petition primarily questioning the date of birth recorded in his service records. According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 24.8.1953, whereas in the service record, it is mentioned as 24.8.1951. All the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter inasmuch as the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 413 of 2007 Nityanand Joshi Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and another, regarding the same aspect which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this court on 20.4.2007 asking the authority to consider his representation. Consequently the petitioner filed a representation, which was rejected and then he preferred another writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1589 of 2007 Nityanand Joshi Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and another, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this court on 30.10.2007 on merits. The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge reads as under: 2 “5) From the reasons mentioned in the impugned order quoted above it is clear that the date of birth in the record available with respondent No. 2 was found recorded to be 24.08.1951, since 31.03.1977. From the aforesaid order it is also clear that full opportunity of being heard is given to the petitioner before the impugned order is passed. 6) Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Interim Relief Application also stands dismissed).” As such, without going into the merits of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed being barred by the principle of res judicata. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 01.7.2011 Rathour