JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has authorised Shri Srinath Sharma to argue his case because according to the petitioner, his counsel has thought it proper to abstain from the Court. Whether the learned counsel for the petitioner has discharged his ethical or legal obligation towards his client is a matter which I leave to him to decide but absence of the Counsel is no ground whatsoever for the Court to postpone decision of the cases. For this reason, I have allowed representative of the petitioner to argue the case. 2. Petitioner, who joined service in the Rehabilitation Department at Alwar has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 9.10.91 (Annex. 6) issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest retiring him from service. 3. Petitioner has come out with the case that his date of birth is May 30, 1935. He was initially employed in the Rehabilitation Department. Subsequently he was transferred to Forest Department. His Service Book was prepared in the Forest Department. His date of birth came to be recorded as May 30, 1935 and it was duly verified by the competent authority. In the seniority list of the Foresters issued on 29.2.80 by the Chief Conservator of Forest, name of the petitioner has been shown at serial No. 47 and against his name date of birth has been shown as 30th May, 1935. According to the petitioner, the Dy. Conservator of Forest cum- Dy. Director (Core Area) Tiger Project Ramthambhore, district Sawai-Modhopur had directed the petitioner to appear before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest at Jaipur on 9.10.91 and also to produce before him Middle Pass Certificate. On that very date, the petitioner submitted a letter to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur, indicating that he is not in a position to produce Middle Certificate. He however, gave out that he may be producing the Certificate given by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. The petitioner says that he appeared before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and submitted that his date of birth has been duly recorded as 30th May 1935 and that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest had no authority to make change in his date of birth in view of the provision contained in Rule 8(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as it stands after amendment made by notification dated, 24.1.79. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest thereafter issued impugned order retiring the petitioner from service on the basis of his conclusion that according to the year of birth of the petitioner, namely 1931 or 1933 he should have retired much earlier. 4. Among other pleas, the petitioner has stated that before passing the impugned order the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest had not given any notice to him proposing a change in his date of birth from May 30, 1935 and no opportunity of hearing was given to him. On that basis, the petitioner has submitted that action taken by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest is contrary to the basic principles of natural justice and is therefore, liable to be declared as void. 5. In their reply, respondents have pleaded that in different documents the petitioner has given out his year of birth differently. At the time of appointment in the year 1949 he has been shown to be 18 years of age. In the applications submitted by him in the years 1952 and 1956 he has given his year of birth to be 1933. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioner was ineligible to be appointed in public employment in the year 1949 with reference to year of birth as 1935 because, no person below 18 years of age was eligible to be employed in Government service. 6. Respondents have further pleaded that the petitioner had sufficient notice of the intention of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to effect a change in his date of birth. The petitioner was fully aware of the correct position and therefore, no prejudice has been suffered by him. 7. Respondents have placed before the Court a number of documents showing different dates/years of birth of the petitioner. 8. Petitioner has filed an additional affidavit dated, 7.1.93. Therein he has stated that as many as 7 persons had been employed in Government service before attaining the age of 16 years. On the basis of the facts set out in para-2 of the additional affidavit, the petitioner has pleaded that there was a consistent practice of employing persons below 16 years of age and the case of the petitioner was no exception. 9. On the basis of the facts set out in para-2 of the additional affidavit, the petitioner has pleaded that there was a consistent practice of employing persons below 16 years of age and the case of the petitioner was no exception. 9. Argument of Shri Srinath Sharma, representative of the petitioner, which he has sought to build up around Rule 8(2)(a) of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is being mentioned by me only to be summarily rejected. 10. This Court has in Samrathlal Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1985 RLR 443 , held that the provisions contained in Rule-8(2)(a) is ultra vires to the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16. Once the rule has been declared to be unconstitutional it is not possible to accept the contention that the Government had no jurisdiction to effect a change in the date of birth of the petitioner which stood as on 1.1.79. 11. Other submission of Shri Srinath Sharma however, merits acceptance. He has argued and in my opinion with sufficient justification that before ordering retirement of the petitioner by the impugned order dated, 9.10.91, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest had not given any action oriented notice to the petitioner proposing a change in his date of birth and had not given him any opportunity of presenting his side of the case. Shri Sharma submitted that the date of birth recorded in the Service Book of the employee confers a civil right upon him to serve upto the date of superannuation or till the completion of a specified age given for the purpose of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Shri Sharma submitted that such a civil right cannot be infringed without compliance of basic rule of natural justice, namely, audi alteram partem. He has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Ms. (Dr.) Bina pani Dei, AIR 1967 S.C. 1269 and Sarjoo Prasad v. General Manager and another, AIR 1981 S.C. 1481 . Miss Goya], learned Dy. Government Advocate, submitted that even though a specific notice may not have been given to the petitioner, he did have knowledge of all the facts as also of the intention of the Chief Conservator of Forest to retire him from service. Miss Goya], learned Dy. Government Advocate, submitted that even though a specific notice may not have been given to the petitioner, he did have knowledge of all the facts as also of the intention of the Chief Conservator of Forest to retire him from service. Miss Goyal argued that when the petitioner had full knowledge of the facts and he had himself submitted before the Chief Conservator of Forest that his Middle Certificate was not available, the petitioner cannot complain of violation of the rules of natural justice. Miss Goyal further argued that no manifest injustice has been done to the petitioner on account of breach of the rules of natural justice and therefore, this court must not interfere in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. The date of birth entered in the Service Book plays an important role in the service career of an employee. At times in becomes crucial in the matter of determination of seniority. When two persons are selected in the same selection, are appointed on the same day and they joined the service on the same day. Date of birth is vital for determination of the point of time when a Government servant retires on superannuation. It is also important when question of retirement of an employee is considered under Rule-244 of 1951 Rules. Entry in the date of birth of the employee is a part of the service conditions of an employee regulated by the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951. Once a duly verified entry is made in the service record, the employee is assured of being continued in service till 58 years computed on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the Service Book. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that entry in the date of birth confers civil right on an employee to remain in service for a particular length of time. Before that right is curtailed, abridged or infringed, it is absolutely essential for the competent authority to give notice of its intention to bring about change in the date of birth and also give him an effective opportunity to meet with the proposal of change in the date of birth. That is necessary for the compliance of principles of natural justice, namely, no man should be condemned unheard. 13. That is necessary for the compliance of principles of natural justice, namely, no man should be condemned unheard. 13. A more or less similar question was examined by the Supreme Court in Miss (Dr.) Binapani Dei's case (supra). There two respondents had been retired from service on the basis of a date of birth which was other than the one entered in the service Book. The Orissa-High Court allowed the petition on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and while upholding the decision of the Orissa High Court, the Supreme Court made the following observation "Even administrative orders which involve civil consequences have to be passed consistently with the rules of natural justice-Order of compulsory retirement based on a certain disputed date of birth-Petitioner not given the report of the Enquiry Officer who conducted an enquiry into the correct date of birth- Order violates principles of natural justice." 14. The principle laid down in Miss (Dr. ) Binapani Dei's case has been followed during the last 25 years in all the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court and it has been held that before effecting any direct or indirect change in the date of birth of an employee recorded in the service book a notice and an opportunity of hearing must be given to the employee. Even the Government of Rajasthan issued instructions vide circular No. F. 8(33) Apptts (A)/55, Dated 28.4.1958 in the year 1958 and laid down the procedure which is in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 15. In the case in hand, it is more than clear that no notice proposing a Change in the date of birth of the petitioner was given to him by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and he was not called upon to make his submissions in that regard. In view of this fact situation, I have no hesitation in holding that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has acted in breach of the principles of natural justice when he passed order dated, 9.10.91 on the assumption that year of birth of the petitioner is 1931 or 1933 and in ignoring the recorded date of birth of the petitioner as May 30, 1935. Argument of the learned Dy. Government Advocate that no prejudice has been suffered by the petitioner is without any substance. Argument of the learned Dy. Government Advocate that no prejudice has been suffered by the petitioner is without any substance. The very fact that instead of his retirement in the year 1993 the petitioner has been retired over a year and held earlier is by itself sufficient to show that the petitioner has been pre-judicially affected. Mere asking the petitioner to appear before the respondent with his Middle Certificate did not in any manner, give an indication that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest wanted to effect a change in the date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner could not have therefore, advanced his submissions against the change in his date of birth or retirement at an earlier date. 16. On the basis of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated, 9.10.91 is declared illegal and it is hereby quashed. However respondents are left free to decide the question relating to the date of birth of the petitioner afresh and having regard to the contents of the documents which the respondents have placed on record. I direct that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan Jaipur, should decide this matter afresh within three months of (sic after) giving a notice to the petitioner. Costs made easy.Petition allowed. *******