1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 203 of 1997 MADAN MOHAN MEHTA V/S DIRECTOR,LOCAL BODIES, & ORS Mr. MANISH SHISHODIA, for the appellant Mr. RL JANGID, AAG for the respondent State Mr. R.R.NAGAURI for the respondent No.2 & 3 Date of Order : 19.2.2009 HON'BLE SHRI AM KAPADIA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE MR. A.M. KAPADIA, J.) 1.Challenge in this special appeal is to the order dated 16.03.1993, rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1885 of 1986, by the learned Single of this Court, whereby the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed and thereby prayer to quash the order of retiring the appellant from service (Annex.2 to the writ petition) treating his death of birth to be 02.02.1928 instead of 02.02.1932 passed by the Director, Local Bodies and consequential order (Annex.12 to the writ petition) passed by the Municipal Board, Pratapgarh, has been refused. 2.The appellant joined service in the Municipal Board, Pratapgarh on 07.04.1951 as a Tax Realizing Inspector. According to the appellant, his date of birth was earlier 2 entered as 02.02.1928 but it was subsequently corrected by the Executive Officer on the basis of a certificate filed by him as 02.02.1932. Thereafter, one Mohan Das, an employee of Municipal Board, who was removed at the instance of appellant from Tax Department of Municipal Board, lodged a complaint against the appellant stating that appellant's date of birth was wrongly entered as 02.02.2032 and on 05.09.19985, the Director, Local Bodies passed order after hearing appellant and the Chairman of the Municipal Board as under: “The Chairman of Pratapgarh Municipal Board submitted the service book of Shri Mehta. Educational Certificate was shown. His date of birth entered in time is 02.02.1932. The same was investigated by District Public Grievances Committee, Chittorgarh and the allegation that he has changed the date of birth was found to be baseless.” 3.The appellant received notice from Municipal Board, Pratapgarh on 26.05.1986 asking his explanation about birth date to which the appellant submitted his reply. As per the complaint, service record of the appellant was interpolated by him and thereafter, the Director, Local Bodies directly called for the report of the Municipal Board and the Municipal Board by communication dated 29.08.1986 sent its report. In its report, the Municipal Board stated that the date of birth of the appellant was 02.02.1932 and that there was no question of change in date of birth in the service record of a Government 3 employee as the date of birth could not be changed after 01.01.1979 in view of the provisions of Rule 8(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. However, ultimately the date of birth of the appellant was changed to 02.02.1928. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed the writ petition. 4.It may be noted that during pendency of the petition, appellant attained the age of superannuation even if his date of birth was 02.02.1932 and not 02.02.1928, therefore, his claim could be at the most for arrears of salary. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of material placed before him, came to the conclusion that interpolation was done in the service record changing the date of birth from 02.02.1928 to 02.02.1932. Learned Single Judge also recorded categorical finding that the younger brother of appellant retired from service earlier to the appellant, therefore, the authority concerned rightly found that the appellant wrongly mentioned his date of birth as 02.02.1932 and on the basis of said finding, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, giving rise to the instant special appeal at the instance of original petitioner. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the impugned order as well as the original service record of the appellant produced by learned 4 counsel for the respondents. On perusal of the service book of the appellant, it is seen that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded therein is 2nd February 1932 but on scanning the year 1932, there is no manner of doubt that figure 32 has been interpolated by erasing original figure of 28, therefore, there is a reason to believe that when the appellant joined service, he must have mentioned his date of birth as 2nd February 1928. That apart, one more document i.e. copy of Scholar Register issued by the Headmaster of Government Upper Primary School, Pratapgarh is there wherein also his date of birth is recorded as 02.02.1928, which is an authentic document whereas the certificate on which the appellant relies i.e. Academic Certificate issued by the Principal, M.P. Academy, Nemuch Cantt, which mentions his date of birth as 2nd February 1932, is not an authentic document and since it came to the notice of the authority concerned about interpolation made in the service book, the authority was duty bound to record as to who made the interpolation in record, whether it was appellant himself or any other member of the staff, who in connivance with the appellant made interpolation. However, record speaks for itself that figures in the date of birth have been interpolated and figures '32' have been written on figures '28' thereby making the date of birth of the appellant as 02.02.1932. Another document i.e. Scholar Register is also there, to which a reference is made earlier and wherein also the date of birth of the 5 appellant is recorded as 02.02.1928. There is yet another aspect of the matter that appellant's younger brother retired from service earlier to the appellant, which fact is apparently unable to dislodge the said facts. Therefore, according to us, the finding is based on consideration of the circumstances and the documents and a perusal of service book of appellant it is visible that figures '28' have been substituted by '32' and therefore interpolation made in the service record could be ordered for correction and the authority was justified in coming to the conclusion that from perusal of documents it is clear that the correct date of birth of the appellant was 02.02.1928 and not 02.02.1932 and this finding is based on appreciation of record. 6.The contention of the appellant that his date of birth was duly recorded and verified by the then Municipal Commissioner way back in 1953 and same could not be changed to the disadvantage and prejudice to the appellant without giving him prior notice and opportunity to defend his case especially when the Director had dropped the proceedings in the presence of appellant and the Chairman, Municipal Board vide his order dated 05.09.1985, has no substance when interpolation on the service book of appellant is visible, which can be seen even by necked eyes that figures 32 have been substituted in place of figures 28 and there is available on record copy of 6 Scholar Register issued by the Headmaster of Government Upper Primary School, Pratapgarh in which also his date of birth is recorded as 02.02.1928. Besides this, prior to passing of the order, appellant was given notice and called to file his explanation to the notice to which appellant submitted his reply and thereafter the authority found substance in the complaint that interpolation was made in the service record changing the year of birth from 1928 to 1932. Therefore, the submission that his date of birth was changed without giving proper opportunity to defend is also without any substance. 7.In aforesaid view of the matter, according to us, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by appellant having found no substance in it. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the said order of the learned Single Judge as according to us no other order is permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case except dismissal of the writ petition. 8.Seen in the above context, this special appeal lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed. 9.For the foregoing reasons, this intra-court appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( AM KAPADIA ),J. 7 JPA