MOHITOSH MAJUMDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is directed against an order as contained in Annexure B to the writ application. Annexure B to the writ application is quoted below: 'no. 87/sec (E)/db/2 New Delhi, 10/8/87 Reference your letter on the above noted subject. The case of alteration of date of birth of SI/rpf Umapada Dutta has been examined. The DG/rpf agrees with the appreciation contained in para 2 of your letter and there is no case for alteration of his date of birth. The C. S. R. of the above named employee is returned herewith. Please acknowledge receipt". ( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the writ application Sri Sultan Singh, Director General, RPF, sent a telegram which is quoted below: Government of India Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) XXR Wireless/post Cop. Issued on 6/6/88 Raja Sreedharan Chief Security Commissioner/rpf Eastern Railway Calcutta. No. 87/sec (E)/db/2 (g) Refer Your D. D. No. SC 57 1329-L, dated 2-6-88 Regarding Alteration of Date of Birth of S. L. (Now IPF) Sri Umapada Dutta of Eastern Railway (.) CSR of Shri Umapada Dutta has since been sent back to your Railway vide Boards letter of even number dated 2-6-88 (.) Representation of IPF Umapada Duty for alteration of his recorded Date of Birth has been rejected in view of the instructions contained in Boards letter No. E (NC)IICBR/1, dated 3-12-71 as rules do not permit consideration of such late requests for alteration in the recorded Date of Birth (. ). Gulhati Railways (.) Sd/- Illegible (Sultan Singh) For Director General/rpf" ( 3 ) CHIEF Security Officer by letter, dated 2nd June, 1988 informed the Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Sealdah, the decision of the Minister of Railways. The said Memo is quoted below: "no. SC 30/26/3-E Pt. III 14, Strand Road, Calcutta-1 Dated, 2nd June, 1988 Divl. Security Commissioner, RPF/e. Rly. Sealdah. Sub: Alteration of date of birth of SI/rpf Umapada Dutta of E. Rly. Ref: D. S. C. /sdah's No. DSC/e-10/86-87 dated 30th December, 1987. This is to inform you that the Ministry of Railway have not agreed to the alteration of date of birth of Sri U. P. Dutta, IPF from 7/5/30 to 18/1/32 vide XXX Wire No. 87/sec. (E) DR/e, dated 31/5/88 Sri Dutta may please be informed accordingly Sd/- For Chief Security Commissioner RPF/e. Rly. Calcutta. No. SO/fs/15/88 Dt. This is to inform you that the Ministry of Railway have not agreed to the alteration of date of birth of Sri U. P. Dutta, IPF from 7/5/30 to 18/1/32 vide XXX Wire No. 87/sec. (E) DR/e, dated 31/5/88 Sri Dutta may please be informed accordingly Sd/- For Chief Security Commissioner RPF/e. Rly. Calcutta. No. SO/fs/15/88 Dt. 22/7/88 Copy docketed to Sri Umapada Dutta, for information. Sd/- Divl. Security Commissioner, RPF/e. Rly. , Sealdah". ( 4 ) SINCE the Orders have been passed during the pendency of the writ application, this Court granted leave to Mr. Dutta to use the supplementary Affidavit. The said two Orders relate to the subsequent events. The Court can take notice of the said subsequent events and they are also assailed by the petitioner. The facts of the case are, in brief, as follows: - ( 5 ) THE petitioner was initially recruited as Class-IV staff as Constable in the then RPF, Lilluah on 7th May, 1951. His date of birth is recorded as May 7, 1930. The petitioner's actual date of birth as quoted by him is January 18, 1932 as per School Admission Register of Mazdia Rail Bazar High School, Post Office-Mazdia, District-Nadia. Sri S. C. Biswas, the then Head Master of the School issued a certificate which is quoted below: "mazdia Rail Bazar High School P. O.-Mazdia, Dt. Nadia. To whom it may concern This is to certify that Sri Umapada Dutta, Son of Late Anukul Chandra Dutta of Village Mazdia (Nadia) was a student of Class X upto August, 1948 of Mazdia R. B, High School. His date of birth as per Admission Register of the School is 18th January, 1932. To the best of my knowledge and belief, he bears a good moral character. Seal of the sd/- S. C. Biswas School. head Master Mazdia Rail Bazar High School 3/5/84" ( 6 ) THE petitioner after receipt of the Notice of Superannuation as con-tained in Annexure: E submitted a representation dated March 5, 1987. ( 7 ) BY the said representation the petitioner prayed for correction of the date of birth. The said representation is also quoted below: To The Inspector General, Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway, Calcutta. (Through Proper Channel) Sub: Correction of date of birth, Ref: Superannuation Notice of senior Commandant/sealdah No. B. O. Pt II No. 63/87, dated 27/1/87. ( 7 ) BY the said representation the petitioner prayed for correction of the date of birth. The said representation is also quoted below: To The Inspector General, Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway, Calcutta. (Through Proper Channel) Sub: Correction of date of birth, Ref: Superannuation Notice of senior Commandant/sealdah No. B. O. Pt II No. 63/87, dated 27/1/87. Respected Sir, With reference to the above superannuation notice of senior Commandant/ Sealdah received by me only recently, I beg to submit the following respectful submissions in the earnest hope and belief that the same will receive due and judicious consideration at your Honour's magnanimous hands. 2. The said superannuation notice of Sr. Commandant/sealdah states that I will superannuate from service w. e. f. 31/5/88 (A. N.) on attaining the age of 58 years. Calculated on the basis of this superannuation date viz. , 31/5/88 my date of birth appears to have been recorded in the Service Record as May, 1930. 3. But this date of birth, i. e. , May, 1930 as recorded in the S. R. is wholly wrong. My actual date of birth is 18th January, 1932. Hence my actual date of superannuation should be 18th January, 1990 which under the existing rules is extendable upto the end of month of superannuation, i. e. , 31st January, 1990. But such to my shock, surprise and dismay my date of superannuation in terms of the superannuation notice presently issued to me has been advanced by 1 (one) year and 8 (eight) months to 31st May, 1988. This is clearly wrong and needs to be rectified. 4. Accordingly to the nominal roll my date of birth has been shown as 7th May, 1930. This proves that my date of birth has been incorrectly shown in the Railway Records against the actual and correct date of 18th January, 1932. Hence my date of superannuation has been calculated on a wrong basis to advance it to 31st May, 1988 against the actual and correct, dated 31st January, 1990. 5. In this connection, I beg to submit that I was recruited as a Class IV staff, by designation, a Constable in the then Railway Protection Police/ Lilluah which in 1957 was transferred into RPF/armed Wing which was further reorganized in 1973. 6. According to the prevailing system in the then Railway Protection Police/lilluah, Literate Constable to open the Service Records of new recruits. 6. According to the prevailing system in the then Railway Protection Police/lilluah, Literate Constable to open the Service Records of new recruits. In my case, Literate Constable S. K. Pandey (reported to have died since) joined my Service Record and entered my date of birth in the same. In doing so, it is apparent that he made a mistake and wrongly recorded my date of birth in the Service Record. That is he recorded 7th May, 1930 as my date of birth instead of the actual and correct date 18th January, 1932. 7. I entertained some doubt about the date of birth wrongly recorded in Railway Records and so I approached the Headmaster of Mazdia Rail Bazar High School, P. O. Mazdia, District Nadia where I was a student from Class IV to Class X for certification of my date of birth as recorded m the School records. The Headmaster of the said school has certified and confirmed my date of birth to be 18th January, 1932 as per the Admission Register of the school. A xerox copy of his Certificate date 3/5/84 is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal and appreciation, in proof of the incorrectness of the date of birth as recorded in the S. R. In this connection, I may submit that I could not sit for the Matriculation Examination being disqualified at the Test and hence my qualication has been recorded as "non-Matric" and my date of birth is governed by the School Record of Admission Register. 8. I approached the Headmaster of the said school several times for certification of the date of birth as recorded in the School Records. But as the records could not be readily traced out being old for 20 years or more, becoming misplaced due to reconstruction of the school Building and allied reasons, it could not be traced out earlier inspite of my several approaches to the school and inspite of several efforts of the School Authority. But as the records could not be readily traced out being old for 20 years or more, becoming misplaced due to reconstruction of the school Building and allied reasons, it could not be traced out earlier inspite of my several approaches to the school and inspite of several efforts of the School Authority. A xerox copy of this Certification of the school Headmaster, dated 13/2/87 is also enclosed for your kind perusal and appreciation In these circumstances, I was prevented from making my representation to the Administration in the matter of correction of the date of birth wrongly recorded in the S. R. Obviously without a firm and documentary basis now provided by the School Authority, it would be an exercise in futility to ask for correction of the date of birth as recorded in Railway Records. 9. I would like to emphasise again that as per the system in vogue in the then RPF/llb the S. R. of new recruits were opened by Literate Constable and dates of birth of the candidates were recorded therein by them. As the so called Literate Constables were themselves Class IV Staff, this important job of recording the date of birth affecting the future service of the staff concerned did not rest with the responsible Class III Staff and/or Senior Subordinates as required under the Rules. As a result, there was likelihood of errors creeping in as in my case for which I should not be made to suffer. 10. In fact, due to the lack of proper responsibility and proficiency, the class IV Staff opening the S. Rs and entering the dates of birth, were incapable of making fractional calculations in regard to age and date of birth. To avoid this, they found it convenient and easy to calculate by the whole number even when it involved fractional calculations. This will be proved by the fact of my case in that my date and month of both the appointment and birth have been recorded the same, viz. , 7th May. To avoid this, they found it convenient and easy to calculate by the whole number even when it involved fractional calculations. This will be proved by the fact of my case in that my date and month of both the appointment and birth have been recorded the same, viz. , 7th May. It is true that I was appointed on 7th May, 1951 and for the sake of easy and convenient calculation of date of birth whole number of 21 was deducted from the date of appointment to arrive at the date of birth as 7th May, 1930, although on the date of appointment (i. e. , 7/5/51) my age was 19 years 3 months 13 days on the basis of my actual date of birth, i. e. , 18th January, 1932 this involving fractional calculation. 11. Your Honour will, therefore, kindly appreciate that my date of birth was erroneously recorded as 7th May, 1930 for no fault of mine causing irreparable loss and injury to my service and consequent financial loss to me. I would, therefore, fervently pray that your Honour may kindly be pleased to correct my date of birth as 18th January, 1932 and recall and amend the above superannuation Notice accordingly. Pray consideration, Pray justice. Yours most obedient, Sd/- U. P. Dutta S. I. /cib/sealdah/ DA: 2 as refd. to Dated: Sealdah The 5th March, 1987. Copy to Commandant/rpf, E. Rly. Sealdah for information and necessary action please. Sd/- U. P. Dutta ( 8 ) ON August 10, 1987 the Deputy Director of Security Railway Board, informed the Chief Security Officer Vide Memo No. 87/sec. (E)/db/2 to the following effect:"reference your letter on the above noted subject. The case of alteration of date of birth of SI/rpf, Umapada Dutta has been examine. The DC/rpf agrees with the appreciation contained in paragraph 2 of your letter and there is no case for alteration of his date of birth. The CSR of the above named employee is returned herewith. Please acknowledge receipt. " ( 9 ) THE respondent No. 5 being in charge recommended the claim of the petitioner and requested the respondent No. 4 to hold an enquiry into the allegations of the petitioner. On receipt of the second representation as contained in Annexure C an enquiry was held by one Gazetted Officer, Sri S. K. Ghosh submitted the report, dated May 16, 1988. On receipt of the second representation as contained in Annexure C an enquiry was held by one Gazetted Officer, Sri S. K. Ghosh submitted the report, dated May 16, 1988. The said report, dated 16th May, 1988 is available in the records which are produced by Mr. P. K. Mukherjee, learned Advocate led by Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents. The said Memo is also available in the records. The Memo, dated May 16, 1988 is also quoted below: "please refer to Dy. Director, Security Railway Board's confidential letter No. 87-Sec. (E)/db-2 dated 10/8/87 wherein DG/rpf's decision rejecting the claim of Sri Umapada Dutta for alteration of his date of birth was communicated. On a further representation received from Sri Dutta with the request to verify the veracity of his statement from the admission register of the school. where he studied, the matter was entrusted to Sri D. K. Ghosh my staff. officer. ( 10 ) SRI D. K Ghosh vide his report dated 16/5/88 states as follows ". "i have visited Mazdia Railbazar High School and have checked the admission register of the school concerning the admission of Sri U. P. Dutta. The register was subsequently rebound but the pages are old and the entries indicated old entries. There was no overwriting/re-writing. Xerox copy of the relevant page could be arranged in two parts which are attached herewith. " in view of the report stated above, I am inclined to believe that the claim of Sri Umapada Dutta is a genuine one and therefore, recommend the case for reconsideration. In view of the proximity of the date of superannuation of Sri Dutta on 31/5/88, it is requested that the decision arrived at may please be communicated before 31/5/88. The service Books and a Xerox copy of the school admission register relating to the admission of Sri U. P. Dutta are enclosed The Service Book may please be returned,"da: one Service Book and xerox copy of the admission register. Sri M. B. Kaushal, Executive Director, Security, RPF, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. ( 11 ) DURING the course of enquiry by Sri D. K. Ghosh certified copy of the relevant page of the admission register of the year, 1941 was obtained by him. The relevant columns of the said admission register are as follows: 1. Date of Admission : 18/3/1941 2. ( 11 ) DURING the course of enquiry by Sri D. K. Ghosh certified copy of the relevant page of the admission register of the year, 1941 was obtained by him. The relevant columns of the said admission register are as follows: 1. Date of Admission : 18/3/1941 2. Names of Scholars : UMAPADA DUTTA 3. Father's Name : Anukul Chandra Dutta 4. Occupation : Service 5. Income : Rs. 800 6. Guardian's Name : 7. Occupation : 8. Income : 9. Residence with Dist. : Majdia, Nadia 10. With Parent/guardian : Guardian 11. Whether brother or father is an employee of E. Rly. : Nil 12. Horoscope, if any : Nil . 13. Age/years, months, Days : 9 years 2 months 14. Date of Birth : 15. Sig. of father or Guardian : Sd/- A. C. Dutta 16. Another Gentlemen's Signature : 17. School from which the boy comes : Examined fd. lit for 18. Class in that school : IV 19. Class in this school : IV 20. No. of certificate : 21. Date of certificate : 18/3/1941 22. Signature of Head master : Sd/- TPG ( 12 ) THE aforesaid relevant entries so far as the petitioner is concerned are shown against the said columns xerox copy of the Attendance Register and also the reports as are referred to above are filed before this Court may be treated as part of the records of the case. It is very much significant to refer to another document, dated July 8, 1987 addressed to the Director General, RPF, by the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF. The Memo, dated July 8, 1987 is quoted below:"no. SO. 36/26/3-E Pt. III Calcutta, dated the 8th July, 1987. Sub-Inspector, Sri Umapada Dutta who is due superannuation with elect from 31/5/88 (AN) on attaining the age of 58 years on the basis of his. recorded date of birth (i. e. , May, 1930) has on receipt of superannuation notice represented for alteration of his date of birth stating, inter alia, that at the time of appointment, his date of birth was wrongly entered in the Service Book Vide representation enclosed together with its enclosures. recorded date of birth (i. e. , May, 1930) has on receipt of superannuation notice represented for alteration of his date of birth stating, inter alia, that at the time of appointment, his date of birth was wrongly entered in the Service Book Vide representation enclosed together with its enclosures. Incidentally, it is mentioned that though the representationist is a literate and Class III staff and he had doubts about his date of birth since last 20 years, yet he never even tried to avail of the last opportunity for rectification of his recorded date of birth within 31/7/73 in terms of Railway Board's letter No. E (NG) II-70-BR/1, dated 3/12/71. Moreover, inspite of obtaining the certificate dated 3/5/84 regarding his alleged correct date of birth from the Headmaster, Majdia Rail Bazar High School in 1984, he did not represent his case till 1987 when he was served with the notice of superannuation. It is, thus, clearly an afterthought and, in my view, the certificates cannot be relied on. The Service Book of the representationist is enclosed which may please be returned along with the decision taken on the issue. "da: E. Book of SI/u. P, Dutta. (2) Representation, dated 5/3/87 with its enclosures-2 sheets. The Headmaster also issued a certificate, dated 13th February, 1987. The said Certificate reads thus:"certified that Sri Umapada Dutta, son of Late Anukul Chandr'a Dutta of Post Office and Village-Majdia, Nadia was a student of Class X upto 1948 of Majdia R. B. High School. The above named Ex. student of this school appeared before me in several occasions for obtaining a School Certificate indicating the date of birth as recorded in the School Admission Register. This was the old records for more than 20 years and above which could not be traced out immediately even after a thorough search due to reconstruction of the school building. and misplaced somewhere else. Again, after a search while Sri Umapada Dutta appeared before the undersigned the said admission Register could be traced out. On going through the records it is found that the actual data of birth of Sri Umapada Dutta was 18th January, 1932 and accordingly, necessary certificate to this effect was issued on 3/5/84. " ( 13 ) IN the background of the facts and circumstances as detailed above,. On going through the records it is found that the actual data of birth of Sri Umapada Dutta was 18th January, 1932 and accordingly, necessary certificate to this effect was issued on 3/5/84. " ( 13 ) IN the background of the facts and circumstances as detailed above,. it would appear that the concerned Officer requested the respondent No. 2 for proper consideration of the case of the petitioner. The petitioner to his utter surprise was sought to be retired with effect from June 1, 1988. From a reference to Annexure B, it would appear that the concerned respondent instead of considering the Note, dated January 19, 1988, School Admission Register, the report of Sri D. K. Ghosh, and the Headmaster's Certificate merely acted as rubber-stamp inasmuch as the Memo, dated August 10, 1987 does not refer to all the basic and foundational documents as are indicated above. The Deputy Director merely agrees with the appreciation contained in paragraph 2 of the letter, dated July 2, 1987. The petitioner was not furnished with the copies of the said Memo, dated July 8, 1987 and the Note, dated January 19, 1988. The startling facts would not have seen the light of the day but for the fairness of Mr. P. K. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate led by S. N. Mukherjee for respondents, who produced the records. The Memo, dated July 8, 1987 in fact and effect amounts to the determination of the case of the corrections of the date of birth of the petitioner. ( 14 ) THE present case present a very shabby state of affairs. An Enquirer was held. Enquiry Officer Sri D. K. Ghosh submitted his report, dated May 16, 1988. Pursuant to the said report of Sri D. K. Ghosh, the Memo, dated May 16, 1988 was issued. In this connection, another officer note was submitted for the purpose of deciding the case of alteration of the date of birth of the petitioner. Memo, dated July 8, 1987 was neither furnished to the petitioner nor the same is annexed to the Affidavit.-in-opposition. Mr. In this connection, another officer note was submitted for the purpose of deciding the case of alteration of the date of birth of the petitioner. Memo, dated July 8, 1987 was neither furnished to the petitioner nor the same is annexed to the Affidavit.-in-opposition. Mr. Mukherjee for the respondents by referring to the various documents annexed to the writ application resisted the stand taken by the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner's date of birth was wrongly recorded as May 7, 1930 but the relevant records which went in favour of the petitioner were not annexed nor made known to the petitioner. It is also very appropriate for this Court to record that the respondents by Note, dated January 19, 1988 expressed its view that the erstwhile Army Wing of the RPF having already been abolished, it is hardly possible at this stage if the said Circular had been circulated to all the companies under the Railway, Armed Wing by the Security Officer, Army Wing, Lilluah. This Note, dated January 19, 1988 was not disclosed. The authority concerned failed to ascertain as to whether the said Circular had, in fact, been circulated to all the Companies under the Army Wing by the Security Officer, Army Wing Lilluah. This fact was never brought to the notice of the Chief Security Commissioner or to the Railway Board. The Orders impugned as are set out in extense hereinbefore involve civil consequences. Any Order involving civil consequences is required to be passed after strictly adhering to the concept of audi alterem pertem or by observing procedural fairness. ( 15 ) MR. Dutta seriously assailed the Orders of the respondents and contended that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing nor he was given opportunity of knowing the letter, dated July 8, 1987 and note, dated January 19, 1988 Mr. Dutta referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Srimati Bina Pani Devi reported in AIR (1967) SC Page 1269. Mr. Dutta further referred to the judgments of the Supreme. Court in the case of State of Punjab v. E. R. Erry and Others, reported in AIR (1973) SC 834. Dutta referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Srimati Bina Pani Devi reported in AIR (1967) SC Page 1269. Mr. Dutta further referred to the judgments of the Supreme. Court in the case of State of Punjab v. E. R. Erry and Others, reported in AIR (1973) SC 834. Relevant portion of the decision in State of Orissa v. Srimati Bina Pani Devi is quoted below:"the deciding authority, it is true, is not in the position of a Judge called upon to decide an action between contesting parties, and strict compliance with the forms of judicial procedure may not be insisted upon. He is, however, under a duty to give the person against whom an enquiry is held an opportunity to set up his version of defence and an opportunity to correct or to controvert any evidence in the possession of the authority which is sought to be relied upon to his prejudice. For that purpose the person against whom an enquiry is held must be informed of the case he is called upon to meet and the evidence in support thereof. The rule that a party to whose prejudice an Order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its Officers. Duty to act judicially would, therefore, arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an Order to the prejudice of a person is made the Order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the Rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case". If the essentials of justice be ignored and an Order to the prejudice of a person is made the Order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the Rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case". ( 16 ) SIMILARLY, relevant portion of the judgment in the case of State of Punjab v. E. R. Erry and Others is set out below: "the question for our consideration now is whether the Orders imposing a cut in the pension should be set aside for the reason that the Officers were not given reasonable opportunity to show cause. The law on the point is not in doubt. Where a body or authority is judicial or where it has to determine a matter involving rights judicially because of express or implied provision, the principle of natural justice audi alterem pertem applies: See: Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani, 1950 SCR 621 at p. 725 (AOR 1950 SC 222) and Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad v Ghanshyam Das Gupta, 1962 SC 1110 ). With the proliferation of administrative decisions in the welfare State it is now further recognised by Courts both in England and in this country (especially after the decision of House of Lords in 1964 AC 40) that where a body or authority is characteristically administrative the principle of natural justice is also liable to be invoked if the decision of that body or authority affects individual rights or interests and having regard to the particular situation it would be unfair for the body or authority not to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard. See State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi (1967) 2 SCR 625 ( AIR 1967 SC 1269 ) and in Re: H. K. (An Infant) (1967) 2 QRD 612. In the former case it was observed at page 628 as follows:"an Order by the State to the prejudice of a person in derogation of his vested rights may be made only in accordance with the basic rules of justice and fair play. The deciding authority, it is true, is not in the position of a Judge called upon to decide an action between contesting parties and strict compliance with the forms of judicial procedure may not be insisted upon. The deciding authority, it is true, is not in the position of a Judge called upon to decide an action between contesting parties and strict compliance with the forms of judicial procedure may not be insisted upon. He is, however, under a duty to give the person, against whom an enquiry in held an opportunity to set up his version or defence and an opportunity to correct or to controvert any evidence in the possession of the authority which is sought to be relied upon to his prejudice. For that purpose the person against whom an enquiry is held must be informed of the case he is called upon to meet and the evidence in support thereof. The Rule that a party to whose prejudice an Order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its Officers. Duty to act judicially would, therefore, arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed it need not be shown to be super added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an Order to the prejudice of a person is made, the Order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case. "these observations were made with reference to an opportunity which could be described as characteristically administrative. At page 630 it was observed:"it is true that the Order is administrative in character, but even an administrative Order which involves civil consequences as already stated, must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being. heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. " ( 17 ) MR. Mukherjee appearing for the respondents seriously contended that no illegality nor infirmity crept in the proceedings and. heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. " ( 17 ) MR. Mukherjee appearing for the respondents seriously contended that no illegality nor infirmity crept in the proceedings and. the case of the petitioner was properly, validity and legally determined. All the formalities were observed. Mr. Mukherjee referred to the various paragraphs of the Affidavit-in-Opposition. On a perusal of the records. produced by Mr. Mukherjee, certain queries were put to him. The queries are as follows: (1) Was the Note, dated January 19, 1988 considered by the concerned Authority or not? (2) Was the Memo, dated July 8, 1987 was furnished to the petitioners? (3) Was the petitioner given an opportunity of hearing? (4) Whether all the Orders as annexed to the writ petition as also supplementary Affidavit do involve civil consequences? (5) Whether the concerned respondents while discharging the quasi-judicial function acted conformity of the rules of natural justice by affording an opportunity of hearing and by observing procedural fairness? ( 18 ) MR. Mukherjee could not show any documents on papers showing whether the said queries could be effectively answered. The answers of Mr. Mukherjee are in the negative. ( 19 ) IT is an admitted position that the petitioner was denied an opportunity of being heard. Though the petitioner made representations but the said representations were not considered at all. Had the petitioner been given the opportunity of hearing he could have effectively presented his case before the concerned Authority in. support of his stand. The Circular in question was never circulated to him nor the copies of the relevant documents were furnished to him. Since the Orders were passed in violation of the rules of natural justice the impugned Orders cannot be sustained. ( 20 ) ON a closer scrutiny of the materials on record and submissions of Mr. Dutta and Mr. The Circular in question was never circulated to him nor the copies of the relevant documents were furnished to him. Since the Orders were passed in violation of the rules of natural justice the impugned Orders cannot be sustained. ( 20 ) ON a closer scrutiny of the materials on record and submissions of Mr. Dutta and Mr. Mukherjee the Court cannot but reach the conclusion that the Orders impugned in the writ application are vitiated by the following reasons: (a) That the respondents did not apply their mind to relevant materials nor have they considered the same in coming to the conclusion; (b) The respondents while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for correction of the date of birth did not consider the relevant materials on record; (c) The respondents disabled itself in reaching a fair decision by some considerations wholly extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (d) The respondents based their findings upon the facts and circumstances which could not reasonably be entertained. as the facts found were such that no person acting in a quasi-judicial manner and properly instructed as to the relevant fact and law could have found; (e) School Admission Register is reliable evidence under Section 36 of the Evidence Act. ( 21 ) APART from the above, the Orders having involved civil consequences which are succinctly dealt with by Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer in the following manner in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election, Commissioner reported in AIR (1978) SC 851, the same cannot be sustained:"it was argued, based on rulings relating to natural justice that unless Civil consequence ensued, hearing was not necessary. A civil right being adversely affected is a vine qua non for the invocation of the audi alteram partam Rule. This submission was supported by observations in Ram Gopal (1970) 1 SCR 472 : AIR 1970 SC 158 , Col. Sinha, (1971) 1 SCR 791 : AIR 1971 SC 40 . Of course, we agree that if only spiritual censure is the penalty temporal laws may not take cognizance of such consequences since human law operates in the material field although its vitality vicariously depends on its morality. But what is a Civil consequence, let us ask ourselves, by passing verbal body traps "civil consequences" undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of Civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. But what is a Civil consequence, let us ask ourselves, by passing verbal body traps "civil consequences" undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of Civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotations, everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a Civil consequences. "civil" is defined by Black (Law Dictionary), 4th Edn. at p. 311: "ordinarily, pertaining or appropriate to a member of a citizen of free politician community; natural or proper to a citizen. Also, relating to the community or to the policy and government of the citizens and subjects of a State. The word is derived from the Latin civilis, a citizen. . . . In law, it has various significances". "civil Rights" are such a belong to every citizen of the State or country or in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organisation or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage protection by the laws, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc. Or as otherwise defined, civil rights are rights appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed to a civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights and fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, and by various acts of congress made in pursuance thereof. " ( 22 ) ALL the impugned Orders suffer from illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety as devised by Lord Diplok in the case of Council of Civil Servants v. Minister of Civil Supplies, reported in (1985) LRC 948 at pages 1026. In view of the incurable infirmities as are indicated above the Orders are hereby declared illegal and are accordingly set aside. The respondents are given liberty to embark upon the adjudication of the correctness of the age of the petitioner after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Respondents shall also accord an inspection of documents to the petitioner as are referred to hereinbefore and pass a reasoned Order in the light of the observation made in the Order. The respondents are given liberty to embark upon the adjudication of the correctness of the age of the petitioner after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Respondents shall also accord an inspection of documents to the petitioner as are referred to hereinbefore and pass a reasoned Order in the light of the observation made in the Order. The petitioner shall make a detailed and effective representation together all the documents as are referred to in this judgment within a week from date, disposal of the same shall be made within five weeks from the date of receipt at the representation on such basis and in such manner as is directed above. The petitioner shall continue in service till four weeks from the date of the communication of the reasoned Order to the petition. The petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge any adverse decision. ( 23 ) ACCORDINGLY, the application succeeds and is allowed there being no Order as to costs. Application allowed.