W.A.Shishak, J.— By this writ application the petitioner has assailed 2 Government orders namely Notification No. APA-1/44/68 dated Kohima the 6th Feb, 1989 (Annexure F) and memorandum No. APA-l/44/68 dated Kohima the 29 April, 1989 (Annexure 1). The said two orders are extracted below : "Notification dated Kohima, the 6th Feb/89. No APA-l/44/68/- The Governor of Nagaland is please to extend the services of Shri C. Luheshe Sema, NCS presently holding the post of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Wokha for a period of 20 months (twenty months) from 1. 7. 89 in the interest of public service. The Governor of Nagaland is further pleased to direct Shri C. Luheshe Sema, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Wokha to relinquish office on 28. 2. 89 (AN) on expiry of his extended period of services. Sd/-Binod Kumar Commissioner & Secy, to the Govt. of Nagaland. Memorandum Sub : Change of date of birth With reference to his representation dated 8.3.89 Shri Luheshe Sema, former Additional Deputy Commissioner, Wokba is hereby informed that after careful examination of his representation it has been decided that the order issued vide this department's notification of even No. dated the 6. 2. 89, releasing him from his duties from 28. 2, 89 (AN) stands. Su/-G. B. Sahu Under Secy, to the Govt. of Nagaland 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been illegally retired from service w.e.f 28. 2. 89. Also his another grievance is that he was not given an opportunity of being heard before the aforesaid impugned orders were passed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, in the wake of political turmoil in the then Naga Hills in the 50's, like many other Naga young people he also-went under ground. It was some time in the year 19cO that he was persuaded to accept the offer of the post of Area Superintendent. The offer was accepted by the petitioner and he joined service as Area Superintendent under Mokokchung District on 6. 6. 60, vide order No. 55 contained in memorandum No. LT-ll/J/60/729-33, Mokokchung 6th April, I960 which is extracted below :- "No, 55, Mokokchung the June' 60. Shri Lukhesiie Sema is appointed ;is Area Superintendent, purely on temporary basis on the scale of Rs. 100-10-l30-Contd-6-190-EB-10-250/for the group centre at Rotomi. 6. 60, vide order No. 55 contained in memorandum No. LT-ll/J/60/729-33, Mokokchung 6th April, I960 which is extracted below :- "No, 55, Mokokchung the June' 60. Shri Lukhesiie Sema is appointed ;is Area Superintendent, purely on temporary basis on the scale of Rs. 100-10-l30-Contd-6-190-EB-10-250/for the group centre at Rotomi. He is to join the past immediately and make necessary arrangement for the grouping of the following villages at Rotomi in consultation with the Post Commander. 1. Philimi 2. Rotomi Old, j. Rotomi New, 4. Keromcbam. Sd/-Illegible, Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung. 4. The petitioner's further case is that during those abnormal days when army operation was launches on the Naga population, life was risky and the petitioner was left with no alternative but to accept the post offered to him by way of co-operation extended to the Government and also to save himself from extremely difficult situation of those days, inasmuch as refusal to accept the offer would have been understood as opposition to the Government. 5. The petitioner states that at the time of joining service in the capacity of Area Superintendent he made an application for appointment to the said post. His contention is that in those days any literate person was picked up by the administration to join service. He also joined service in such a situation. No particulars were furnished to the administration at the time of joining his service. 6. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Circle Officer in 1968. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Extra Assistant Commissioner some time in April 1978. The next promotion was to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (C) in 1982 and the last promotion was to the post of Add]. Deputy Commissioner some time in May 1988. By the aforesaid impugned orders the petitioner was retired from service w. e. f. 28. 2. 89 (asked to relinquish his job) on the ground that at the time of joining his service as Area Superintendent on 6.6.60, the petitioner had furnished to the administration that he was born some time in 1932 and that this information was received from the Office of Accountant General. It may however be stated here that the Accountant General had stated that the particulars furnished to the Government were based on information received from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Tuensang. It may however be stated here that the Accountant General had stated that the particulars furnished to the Government were based on information received from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Tuensang. It would be necessary to state at this stage that the petitioner has consistently stated that no service book was maintained at the District Head Quarters at Mokokchung or at Tuensang in respect of the petitioner. On perusal of Government affidavit, although it is stated that service book in respect of the petitioner is not traceable, it has not been stated whether service book of the petitioner was at all maintained and available in the Office of Deputy Commissioner at Mokokehung or at Tuensang. 7. The question of determining the date of birth in respect of the petitioner has arisen in view o the fact that at the time of joining service as Area Superintendent in June 1960 the petitioner had not passed the Matriculation Examination. 8. The petitioner sat for the Matriculation Examination as a private candidate in 1961 and he duly passed the said examination. His age on the 1st of March 1961 was 18 years 11 months. The petitioner therefore contends that in view of this his date of birth fails on 1.4. 42. 9. We would like to state here that the fact of the petitioner having passed the Matriculation Examination has not been disputed nor has genuineness of the certificate been doubted by the Government. 10- By Office memorandum dated 21. 5. 88, the petitioner was requested to submit his Matriculation Certificate/Admit Card in original in support of his date of birth. The said Office Memorandum runs as under s- "Office Memorandum The undersigned is directed request Shri Luheshe Sema, Sub-Divisional officer (Civil) Satakha to submit his Matriculation Certificate/Admit Card in original in support of his date of birth immediately. If the required information have not received within a fortnight from the date of issue of this office memorandum, the date 01 birth of Sari. L. Luheshe Sema, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Satakha shall be treated as on 15.6 32, i.e as per records with the Accountant General Nagaland and it shall be treated as final. Sd/-L. K. Angami Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland." 11. On receipt of the said memorandum the petitioner furnished the required document. No doubt the Matriculation Certi0cate was required in order to determine the age of the petitioner. Sd/-L. K. Angami Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland." 11. On receipt of the said memorandum the petitioner furnished the required document. No doubt the Matriculation Certi0cate was required in order to determine the age of the petitioner. 12. Although the petitioner had never asked for extension of his service-by notification dated Kohima the 6th Feb 89 (Annexure A) the Government extended the service of the petitioner for a period of 20 months from 1.7.87 to 28.2.89 on the assumption that the petitioner would have retired from service on 1.7.87 on the ground that the date of birth of the petitioner was 15.6.32 and not 1.4.42. 13 The petitioner represented against the said notification. ]n this regard it may also be stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Wokba had also-written to the Government to the effect trial he had examined the age of the petitioner as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate and he fully endorsed the view of the Deputy Commissioner, Zunhebeto, who also had earlier verified the Matriculation Certificate of the petitioner. A copy of the State Civil List as no 1.1.1985 has been placed before us at the time of hearing and we find that the name of the petitioner is at serial 5 at page 52 of the said list and in this the date o£ birth of the petitioner is shown as > 1.3.1942 This date as recorded in the State Civil List tallies with the Matricula­tion Certificate except that in Civil List the month of March is shown which we take as a cleric 1 mistake. The possibility of such mistake is not ruled out even in terms of the preface to the State Civil List. 14. We have perused pleadings of the parties and various documents annexed to the affidavit filed in connection with this writ application. We have also heard the learned counsel of both sides at length. The possibility of such mistake is not ruled out even in terms of the preface to the State Civil List. 14. We have perused pleadings of the parties and various documents annexed to the affidavit filed in connection with this writ application. We have also heard the learned counsel of both sides at length. The main and perhaps the only point at issue is whether the age as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate of the petitioner is to be accepted in support of his age or to accept the information received from Accountant General by the Government in which it was stated that the Accountant Genera] a office is not the custodian of Service Book of the petitioner but the information furnished to the Government was as per information received from the Deputy Commissioner, Tuensaing, We are not inclined to accept the view of the Government that the particulars furnished by the Office of the Accountant General should be accepted in order to determine the age of the petitioner. This we say because if necessary particulars in respect of the petitioner were available in order to enable the Government to determine the age of the petitioner, we do not understand why the Government felt it necessary to call upon the petitioner to furnish his Matriculation Certificate in support of his age. This action of the Government directly opposes the contention made before this Court that the petitioner had furnished parti­culars in respect of his age at the time of joining service in i960. As stated above, if such particulars were available then there was absolutely no need on the part of the Government ft ask the petitioner to furnish necessary particulars including Matriculation Certificate in order to determine the age of the petitioner. Having done so, the Government cannot now say that the age as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate will not he accepted. If they have reason to do so we hold that in such an went the petitioner would certainly be entitled to get an opportunity of being heard so that he could explain his position. We find that inquiries were made from different sources but surprisingly the impugned orders do not discuss anything as to how the conclusions have been arrived at. The representations made by the petitioner as well as materials collected from different sources have not at all been reflected in the impugned orders. We find that inquiries were made from different sources but surprisingly the impugned orders do not discuss anything as to how the conclusions have been arrived at. The representations made by the petitioner as well as materials collected from different sources have not at all been reflected in the impugned orders. Therefore we are unable to accept the impugned orders as valid. 15. In course of hearing the learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner be examined by a team of medical experts to ascertain the age of the petitioner. This has been objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that no useful purpose would be served in doing so. We are of the view that it will be a futile exercise to accept the submission of the learned Government Advocate, in view of the fact that as directed by the Government the petitioner has already produced relevant documents/materials which are sufficient for determination of the point at issue. It is not the cases of the Government, that th.3 documents a e concocted. I fact the documents produced by the petitioner have been accepted as genuine as stated earlier the only main contention of the Government is that the petitioner had furnished particulars of his age at the time of joining service in 1960 before the petitioner had passed the Matriculation Examination. We are not satisfied with this contention because the Government has not been able to substantiate this contention by producing any convincing evidence. If at all the petitioner had made an application for the post of Area Superintendent, copy of such an application ought to have been produced before us so as to enable us to see the particulars furnished by the petitioner in respect of his age but this has not been done. 16. The fact that Matriculation Certificate is taken as prove of age in this country has not been disputed by the learned counsel appealing for the Government and in fact that is the settled law. In view of this we do not wish to over burden ourselves by referring to all the case laws cited by the parties in this case. Reference may be made to P.N.Choadhury vs. West Bengal, 1981 (1 SLR 570) and hold that the age as recorded in the Matricula­tion Certificate must be accepted to be the age of the petitioner. In view of this we do not wish to over burden ourselves by referring to all the case laws cited by the parties in this case. Reference may be made to P.N.Choadhury vs. West Bengal, 1981 (1 SLR 570) and hold that the age as recorded in the Matricula­tion Certificate must be accepted to be the age of the petitioner. S.S. Sandhu vs. Union of India, 1982 (3) 776 also supports the case of the contention of the petitioner that since materials have been collected by the Government those materials must be considered in coming to the conclusion and since Matriculation Certificate had been furnished to the Government as directed. The Government must give reason to reject the contention of the petitioner that the age as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate is to be accepted as the age of the petitioner. 17. Our own High Court in Radha Mohan Singh vs. State of Tripura, (1988) 2 GLR (NOC) 22 also held "Having asked the petitioner to produce Certificate to prove the date of birth we are of the opinion that the respondents cannot turn down and refuse to consider the said school certi­ficate. We are therefore 01 the opinion that the action of the respondents in refusing to consider the school certificate is illegal and cannot stand." 18. Mr. B.N.Sarma the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before us that the inquiry regarding the date of birth was initiated by the Government only during the extended period of service of the petitioner and this goes to show that till 1 88 the age of the petitioner as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate was accepted inasmuch as eve a in the State Civil List as of 1.1.85, it had found its place at serial 5 at page 2. He has further submitted that the impugned orders do not reflect consideration of any materials furnished to the Government by the petitioner. 19. We have perused the impugned orders and we are convinced that there is nothing to show that the materials including representations made by the petitioner were at all considered before passing the impugned orders. 20. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the age as recorded m the Matriculation Certificate must be accepted as the age of the petitioner to determine the age of superannuation. 20. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the age as recorded m the Matriculation Certificate must be accepted as the age of the petitioner to determine the age of superannuation. This view of ours also finds support in paragraph 3 of office memora­ndum No. APA-2/9/69 dated 20th November, 1973 which states asunder-"It has further been decided that the Government shall rely on (he Matriculation Certificate and for date of birth unless this is corrected by the appropriate authority no such claim will be entertained by the Govern­ment." And in this view of the matter the impugned orders dated 28.2.89 and 27th April 1989 are hereby set aside. 21. Iii the result the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute and we hoi 1 that the age of the petitioner is as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate. The positioned shall be reinstated in service w.e.f. 28.2.89 and he shall be deemed to be in service from the date when he was retired that is from 28.2.89 and he shall be entitled to salary and allowances w.e.f. 28.2.f:9. Re-instatement shall be done within a month from today. There will be an order as to costs.