Mehboob Ali vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, 

DATED THIS THE 25 TH DAY or JULY, 29eSjEEE<iTL 2
BEFORE  % '  % V' A   
THE HOITELE MR. JUSTICE AJITIJ  
WRIT P}3'I'I'l'ION No 9685 cihiémos   

BETWEEN:

1

(By Sri M' KjsHARiEE,  

MEHBOOB ALI J
s/0 SHAIK IMAM  E     _ 

AGED ABOUT 54   ; *   T  
Ir'-'ORMERLY WORKINGAS 'RAl'~EGE~ FOREST
OFFICER EEoDuRGAȤA_NGE, DIEQGURGA
EAICHUE EEEEET DIVISION  ~ 

   I



-   ..... 

 * ~B¥»14'PSv'PR§NCIPAL SECRETARY
 E0REsT;E-EOLGGY, AND ENVIRONMENT

 EEPAETEENT, M.3.BUII..DING

14$

'~BA!fiGAI;ORE-1

PR§b§CIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

' EARANYA BHAVAN, MALLESWARAM
=  EANGALORE-03

HEAD MASTER

MODEL PRIMARY SCHOOL

AINOLI AND AINOLI POST

CHINCHOLI TALUK, GULBARGA DIST'RIC'l'.

. .. RESPONDENTS.

. .. PETITIONER.

(By Sri T.P. SRINIVASA, A. (1.151. )

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 22€3,AI*§}Z)_ 227
THE CONSTITUTION, PRAYING To THE,
RESPONDENTS IN THE FORM ORWRIT. OE MA1\iDAMUS To T
CONSIDER THE CORRECT DATE OR ‘
PETITIONER AS 15.5.1954, INsTEA13_OR 1{§.6..1950′–AND
CONTINUE HIS SERVICE TIL-L HE IS’-ELIGIBLE.jTQHRETIRE*
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION’-I-IIS OORREOT, DATE OF’
BIRTH IE, 15.6.1954. I t

QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM D’I’.5.7.08, AT
ANN-E, AND DIRECTION MAYBE ;$eIj,r:«;I; To CONTINUE
THE SERVICE OF THEgPmI’1’I()N’ER FROM 30.6.08, As IF
HE IS NOT 1={E’:’IfRjEI)=._OII ABOVE DATE AND TO
PROVIDE ,_ _£)ONSEQUgE?§TIAL RELIEF INCLUDING
MONETARY BERERITE »Q’F5.fFHE..§>E’*1’fi’IONER.

.’,C”:«’AV;)’_’IIriII~¥’.f’.’.:VVV” ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING TIIIE I)R.Y,.,”FHE…§3OUR’F MADE THE FOLLOWING:

R

__1ApeIitiOner.’s,_m:p1Iesentation to correct the date of

“5I,,rI§h~ -.fife1;n’~’_1e:L6.195O to 15.6.1954 has been rejected.

” _ Hencejthis féetjiion.

1 The case of the petitioner is that he was working as

Division Clerk from 13.10. 1978 with the first

1 respondent. His date of birth was shown at the time of entry

into service as 15.6.1950. But, however, the petitioner came

to know that he was born on 15.6.1954.

representation which has been rejected.

3. It is to be noticed fl1at’«.___on V”atta_ lnwfiage

superannuation, the petitioner 2 it may,
if the petitioner is of birth he is
required to i:astit1.1te a his date of
birth. seiiiiieiiieecious remedy, the
petitioner under Article 226 of

the CoI1sti£111:i.oI1{ V u

‘petition stands rejected, resezving

to peiitiener to file a suit for appropriate relief.

learned A.G.A. is permitted to file

memo apilfiaraniiiv ._ ‘V 4’ ce within four weeks.

Sd/-~
Judge