1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3291/2010 Smt. Rahimo vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order: 1.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J.
Mr.PS Bhati, for the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has been retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of date of
birth recorded in the service record of the petitioner, which
is dated 7.3.1950. The petitioner has preferred this writ
petition before this Court on 29th March, 2010, whereas the
petitioner was sought to be retired from 31st March, 2010.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner is of age of 51 years only and she submitted
sufficient proof for her age including medical certificate
obtained from the Medical Jurist of Jaisalmer Government
Hospital, which is placed on record as Annex.5 certifying
that the petitioner is of age of about 50-51 years old only.
It is also submitted that petitioner also submitted a copy of
the election card, voter list and rashion card from which it
can be gathered that petitioner is of the age of 51 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar
circumstances in SBCWP No.939/2005 – Smt. Jamna Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors, this Court passed interim order on
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner placed on
record the copy of the seniority list dated 13.9.2000 issued
by the respondents, office order dated 18.11.2009, copy of
the rashion card, copy of the voter’s list and medical report.
It is clear from the seniority list dated 13.9.2000 that in the
seniority list, the date of birth of the petitioner is given as
7.3.1950 and date of joining is given as 1st April, 1999. She
never questioned her date of birth till she is sought to be
retired. The petitioner’s documents, rashion card and
voter’s list prima facie are not sufficient to prove the age
because that admission in her own favour. So far as medical
certificate is concerned, that is also is not a sufficient proof.
Therefore, these disputed facts cannot be decided in the
writ jurisdiction that what is the correct date of birth of the
petitioner. The petitioner already stands retired on
1.3.2010, therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained
to decide the factual aspect. So far as order of this court
passed in SBCWP No.939/2005 is concerned, no fact is
available of the aforesaid case before this court, however, in
the order dated 18.3.2005, this court ordered that the
concerned authority is directed to remain present in court
personally along with the service record of the petitioner
and thereafter granted the interim order. In this case, it is
not in dispute that date of birth recorded in the petitioner’s
service book is 7.3.1950. In view of the above, the order
passed in SBCWP No.939/2005 is of no help to the
Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed
with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the civil
[PRAKASH TATIA], J.