Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8832/2010 Chail Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER ::: 05th October, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. C.S. Rajpurohit, for the petitioner.

Dr. Pratishtha Dave, for the respondents.

---

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has approached this Court praying therein that order Annex-7 dated 07.04.2010 seeking to retire him on 30.09.2010 may be quashed and set aside as the petitioner would be completing the superannuation age of 60 years in the year 2017 as per his date of birth given by the petitioner in the service book maintained by the respondent- Department as 02.09.1957.

Chail Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

Order dt: 05th October, 2010 retirement on completion of 60 years of age will due in the year 2017, however, the respondents taking the date of birth as 02.09.1950 intend to retire him on 30.09.2010 vide impugned order Annex-7 dated 07.04.2010. Against the impugned order, the petitioner submitted representation vide Annex-8 on 31.08.2010, which has un-responded so far.

5. From the said document (Annex-R/2), it also transpires that the petitioner passed 6th standard as per certificate given by the concerned Headmaster of the Government School, Falna, on Item No. 11, DJ/-

Chail Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

Order dt: 05th October, 2010 11.05.1963 and 8th standard on 15.05.1965. Apparently, if the correct date of birth is taken to be as '02.09.1957', the petitioner would be only 6 years of age in the year 1963 and obviously he could not have passed the 6th standard of the school. Normally a student of 5-6 years was/is expected to be in the 1st standard, and for passing the 6th standard of a Government school, the minimum age could be around 12-13 years. On the basis of said document, it is apparent that the petitioner's correct date of birth is 02.09.1950 only as given out by himself in the aforesaid Scholar's Register Form.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents placed on record by both the sides, this Item No. 11, DJ/-

Chail Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

Order dt: 05th October, 2010 Court is of the view that the petitioner is guilty of suppressio-veri in the present writ petition or in other words, placing before the Court only half truths though the documents which have been now produced by the respondents with their reply, were duly within the knowledge of the petitioner. He has chosen not to produce the same before this Court for claiming any relief from this Court. It is well settled that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary power of this Court giving writ jurisdiction to Court under the Constitution of India to be invoked in favour of those persons who have approached the Court with clean hands, and are not guilty of concealment of material particulars from the Court. In the present case, the only controversy involved and raised by the petitioner was about the correct date of retirement by the respondent- Municipal Council, Khudala, Falna, District Pali and since apparently two different sets of documents are before this Court containing two dates of birth, and these questions being disputed questions of facts, this Court cannot go into these questions or determination of the same under writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents also produced before the Court a certified copy of the service book entries of the petitioner, Chail Singh, Naka Guard; according to which, vide Column No. 3 shows that initially the date of birth recorded therein was 02.09.1957 was corrected to be as 02.09.1950 as per order passed by the Deputy Director (Administration), Jaipur vide order No. 5394 dated 21.09.2010, copy whereof is placed on record as Annex-R/6. The Item No. 11, DJ/-