ORDER V.D. Gyani, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a professor, prays for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari quashing order dated 11-1-1991 (Annexure-P/15) issued by Respondent No. 1 (endorsing a copy thereof to respondent No. 2) informing the petitioner that he would be attaining the age of super-annuation on 2-11-1991. 2. The dispute relates to petitioner's date of birth in High School Certificate is 2-11-1931. It is the petitioner's case that his father having died in the year 1937 and some body who got him admitted to school gave his date of birth as 2-11-1931, which continued to remain on school's record, initially in Government Primary School at Nisarpur, where he was admitted and thereafter in Victoria High School, of the Erstwhile State of Barwani, wherefrom he passed his matriculation examination in 1949. 3. The petitioner who is the only male issue born to his parents, on coming to know about the approximate date of his birth from his mother, checked with the Municipal record of Municipal Council, Nisapur and found that his correct date of birth was 9-11-1934 as is evident from extract of the birth register of the year 1934 (Annexure P/ll) dated 13-5-1955 and certificate dated 16-5-1955 issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kukshi by the Erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat. The petitioner at the time of entering into service submitted these proofs of his date of birth along with the matriculation certificate as well and on the basis of these documents, Annexure P1 and P/2 his date of birth, as recorded in the service book is 9-11-1934. It may be noted that it is not a case of suppression on the part of the petitioner. He had submitted his matriculation certificate as well, at the time of entering into service in the year 1966 and his correct date of birth was ascertained and certified from the Municipal record, the birth register in the year 1955, 11 years before the petitioner applied for and joined service as a lecturer in the Indore School of Social Work. 4. 4. It is an admitted position that petitioner joined service in the Indore School of Social work as a lecturer as on 27-7-1966, declaring his date of birth as 9-11-1934 supported by extracts from Birth Register (AnnexureP/1) and a certificate by Magistrate (Annexure-P/2 and P/3), also recorded as such in his service book (Annexure-R/1) maintained by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner had also submitted his maticulation certificate at the time of entering into service. The petitioner was eventually promoted as Assistant Professor w.e.f. 1-7-1971 and later as Professor w.e.f. 12-9-1985 vide Annexure-P/5. 5. The date of birth 9-11-1934, as declared by the petitioner, was all along acted upon for twenty three years by the respondsents until August 1989, when Group Insurance Scheme of College teachers came to be introduced, and the respondent No. 1, vide letter Annexure-P/6, called upon the petitioner to produce his matriculation certificate in support of his birth date. 6. The petitioner submitted his reply, Ex.P/7, on 12-8-1987 reiterating his correct date of birth as 9-11-1934 as declared by him at the time of entering into service and entered in his service book, on the basis of proofs (also enclosed along with Annexure-P/7) submitted by him. The respondent No. 1. however, insisted on production of High School Certificate. The petitioner submitted his reply, Annexure-P/8, stating that the original had been submitted by him at the time of joining service, but he was enclosing a true copy thereof, which he had. 7. It would thus be seen that the dispute about petitioner's date of birth arose for the first time after 23 years of his service and during all these years the date of birth 9-11-1934, as declared by the petitioner, accepted and acted upon by the respondents continued to remain in the service book was for the first time called in question in 1989, that too, in connection with group insurance Scheme of College Teachers. It appears that the respondent No. 1 referred the matter to the Vishva Vidhyalaya Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ayog'), respondent No. 2. The petitioner came to know about it, in the course of the meeting of the governing body of the College. The petitioner requested respondent No. 1 vide letters dated 30-8-1990 (Annexure P/9) and dated 10-9-1990 (Annexure-P/10) to supply him copies of the correspondence that the respondent No. 1 had entered into with the Ayog. The petitioner came to know about it, in the course of the meeting of the governing body of the College. The petitioner requested respondent No. 1 vide letters dated 30-8-1990 (Annexure P/9) and dated 10-9-1990 (Annexure-P/10) to supply him copies of the correspondence that the respondent No. 1 had entered into with the Ayog. The respondent No. 1 by his letter dated 11-9-1990 (Annexure-P/11) informed the petitioner that no change could be made in his date of birth, as entered in the service book, in view of the Rule 84 of the M. P. Financial Code. The letter reads as under:- "Dear Prof. Mandloi, I am directed to inform you that the case of change of date of birth in your High School Certificate was referred to the M.P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog, Bhopal for guidance. As per your High School Certificate your date of birth is recorded as 2nd November, 1931. The copy of certificate from the court, produced by you for changing the date of birth to 9-11-1934 was also sent to the Ayog. In their letter No. S/I89-90/2225 dated 6-3-1990 the Ayog has stated that following the M.P Financial Code Vol. 1, Rule 84, no change can be made in your date of birth. Yours sincerely, Sd/- W. S. K. PHILLIPS." 8. The petitioner again addressed a letter dated 12-9-1990 (Annexure-P/12) to the respondent No. 1 apprising him of the fact that he had never asked nor applied for a change in his date of birth 9-11-1934, as recorded in the service book. This change in petitioner's date of birth was eventually sought by respondent No. 1 who by his letter dated 21-9-1989 (Annexure-P/13) also raises a dispute about petitioner's change of name from Komalsingh to Komalchand. The petitioner being a Brahmin has got his name as back as 1957, as is evident from certificate dated 8-7-1957, issued by Magistrate First Class, Kukshi, Annexure-P/3. The petitioner in his reply dated 22-9-1989 (Annexure-P/14) explained the position about change of name to respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1, contrary to the petitioner's date of birth, as entered in the service book, still maintains that his date of birth 2-11-1931, as mentioned in the High School Certificate was final, had referred the matter to the Ayog. The petitioner in his reply dated 22-9-1989 (Annexure-P/14) explained the position about change of name to respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1, contrary to the petitioner's date of birth, as entered in the service book, still maintains that his date of birth 2-11-1931, as mentioned in the High School Certificate was final, had referred the matter to the Ayog. The respondent No. 2 by his letter dated 6-3-1990 (Annexure-P/17) to the respondent No. 1, stated that no change in petitioner's date of birth was possible in view of the Rule 84 of M. P. Financial Code, still the respondent No. 1 issued the letter dated 11-1-1991 (Annexure-P/15) informing the petitioner that he would attain superannuation on 2-11-1991. Hence, this petition. 9. Shri Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents having accepted the petitioner's date of birth as 9-11-1934 and entered the same in his service book duly recorded as such at the time of petitioner's joining of service, could not change the date. Moreso, in face of the fact that the petitioner had not suppressed his date of birth as entered in the High School Certificate. 10. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that this college was a private college when the petitioner joined service in the year 1966 as such no importance could be attached to petitioner's date of birth as recorded in the service book. 11. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 2 is the competent Authority appointed by the State for discharging its function under the provisions of M. P. Ahbashkiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhypakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyo Ke Vetan Ka Sendai) Adhiniyam, 1978 and they are also governed by the M. P. Ashashkiya Shikshan (Adhyapakon Tetha Anya Karmachariyo Ka Pad Chiut Karne, seva Se Hatana Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983. To say that the date of petitioner's birth 9-11-1934, as entered in the service book was inconsequential merely because the institution was unaided and run privately. What important is the proposed action is being taken against the petitioner after 23 years of his service when the institution is very much governed by the Acts it can not be allowed to take any arbitrary decision or action. 12. Admittedly no enquiry has been held and undisputedly no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner. What important is the proposed action is being taken against the petitioner after 23 years of his service when the institution is very much governed by the Acts it can not be allowed to take any arbitrary decision or action. 12. Admittedly no enquiry has been held and undisputedly no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner. Shri Jain, therefore, contended that even rules of natural justice have been violated. Shri Shukla, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, argued with reference to Annexure R/2 and R/3 extracts of the minutes of the meeting of Board of Governments of the Institution held on 25th August 1990 and 4th April 1991 where at the petitioner was also present when his date of birth came up for consideration and submitted that it was sufficient compliance of rules of natural justice. Reading the relevant portion of Annexure-R/2, it would be clear that all that was done was to convey to the petitioner that in view of Rule 84 no change in the date of birth, as mentioned in the High School Certificate, could be made and to the same effect in substance is the contents of Annexure-R/3. 13. There is an inherent falacy in the arguments advanced by the respondents' counsel. The petitioner was not seeking a change in his date of birth, as mentioned in the High School Certificate. It was the respondent No. 1, who is seeking change in the petitioner's date of birth as entered into the service book and it was in this context that the respondent No. 2 had informed the respondent No. 1, vide Annexure-P/17 that in view of the Rule 84 of the Financial Code, the date of birth entered into service could not be altered. 14. It would not be out of place, at this stage, to stage that the respondent No. 1 had accepted the date of birth 9-11-1934, as declared by the petitioner at the time of entering into service and acted upon it for over 23 years when suddenly for the first time, in the year 1989 when the group Insurance Scheme of College teachers was introduced, the dispute about petitioner's date of birth was raised. It may also be noted that the petitioner while entering into service in the year 1956 had submitted the proofs in support of his correct date of birth as evidence by Annexure P/l and Annexure P/2. He had also not made any suppression about his date of birth, as entered in the High School Certificate, which he had produced in original at the time of entering into service. In face of these material placed before the respondent No. 1 at the time of entering into service the respondent No. 1 had accepted and all along acted upon petitioner's date of birth as 9-11-1934. 15. Shri Shukla, made a faint attempt by suggesting that merely putting initials, by itself would not mean that the date of birth as declared by the petitioner and entered into in the service book was accepted by the respondent No. 1. This argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that at no stage prior to 1989 the date of birth as declared by the petitioner was doubted. 16. Rule 84 of the M.P.. Financial Code is reproduced here under for ready reference : "Rule-84. Every person newly appointed to a service or a post under Government should at the time of the appointment declare the date of his birth by the Christian era with as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence such as a matriculation certificate. Municipal Birth Certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known, an apporimate date may be given. The actual date or the assumed date determined under Rule 85 should be recorded in the history of service, Service book or any other record that may be kept in respect of the Government Servant's service under Government. The date of birth, once recorded in this manner, must be deemed to be absolutely conclusive, and except in the case of a clerical error no revision of such a declaration shall be allowed to be made at later period for any purpose what so ever." 17. A mere reading of this rule would reveal the high handed arbitrary action of respondent No. 1. Annexure R/2 and R/3 can by no stretch of imagination be a substitute for compliance of rules of natural justice, as urged by respondents' counsel. For the foregoing reasons this petition deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. A mere reading of this rule would reveal the high handed arbitrary action of respondent No. 1. Annexure R/2 and R/3 can by no stretch of imagination be a substitute for compliance of rules of natural justice, as urged by respondents' counsel. For the foregoing reasons this petition deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. Annexure-P/15 intimating the petitioner of his superannuation on 2-11-1991, based on his date of birth as 2-11-1931 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed, and the petitioner's date of birth 9-11-1934, as entered in the service, shall remain in force unless otherwise altered in accordance with law. It is this date 9-11-1934 which shall be the basis for determination of petitioner's superannuation. The petition stands allowed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-.