JUDGMENT 1. - The case of the writ petitioner interalia is that he was born on 16.12.1934 in Village Kanota in Tehsil Bassi in the District of Jaipur. He was employed in the University of Rajasthan with effect from 1.11.1963 after his due selection, as a Chowkidar in the School of Humanities on temporary basis. This temporary appointment was extended from time to time and ultimately, by order dated 27.5.1965 he has selected for appointment as literate Peon-cum-Chowkidar-Care Taker in Gandhi Bhawan. By order dated 28.12.1965 his appointment was continued temporarily for further six months which was again extended upto 31st July, 1966. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.7.66, his services were again ordered to be continued until further orders. Vide order dated 20/21st February, 1969 he was placed on probation from 1.4.68 with the condition that his case for confirmation and grade increment shall be considered after the expiry of probation period. Ultimately, by order dated 17.7.69, he was confirmed and his annual grade increments were also duly sanctioned. After he was recognised as a regular employee, he was contributing to the Provident Fund Scheme. On 24.5.73, Director of the Institute Dr. K.L. Kamal had issued a certificate to the effect that he was working as a permanent employee of the University. A certificate of revised pay scale from 1.11.63 till 1.9.86 was also issued to him by the Deputy Registrar of the University. On 31.3.89, he filed an application for fixation of his proper rank. His option was taken regarding date of fixation and increment but the same was not made, but ultimately, the University did not pay heed to his request. On 29.5.92, he filed another application for fixation and appointment on the post of Assistant with effect from the year 1988. The University of Rajasthan made and published its Pension Regulations, 1990 and in pursuance to the Government decision dated 16.4.91, pension scheme was made effective from 1.1.90. It has been submitted before me that pursuant to the Division Bench judgment passed on 18.10.94 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6668/1992 the Pension Scheme was made effective w.e.f. 1.1.86. The decision in Amrit Lal V. Jai Narain was relied upon by the Division Bench in this context. On 11.8.1992, the petitioner however, was relieved from the duty in pursuance to University order dated 6.8.92. The decision in Amrit Lal V. Jai Narain was relied upon by the Division Bench in this context. On 11.8.1992, the petitioner however, was relieved from the duty in pursuance to University order dated 6.8.92. The said order envisaged that the petitioner was retired with effect from 30.11.88 on the ground that the record regarding his date of birth was not available in the office of the University. The petitioner contends that the order dated 6.8.92 is apparently illegal inasmuch as it is arbitrary as well as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, it was in violation of the principles of natural justice and fairplay. Simply because the University authorities have lost the records pertaining to the date of birth of the petitioner, he could not be penalised by an order declaring him to have retired with effect from 30.11.88, even though the order was passed on 6.8.92 and according to the contention of the petitioner, he has not then reached the age of superannuation. The fixation of the date regarding promulgation of the Pension Scheme which was initially made with effect from 1.1.90 and not from 1.9.86, had also been challenged by fellow employees of the University and in that context, perhaps the University took a decision on administrative side to retire as much of their employees as would become possible by virtue of this arbitrary order. The further contention of the writ petitioner was that he has filed his horoscope and he was never allowed to lead evidence in support of the horoscope which he had in support of his testimony regarding proof of his date of birth and that opportunity not having been so granted to him, there was a flagrant injustice in his case. 2. On behalf of the University authorities, no reply has been filed, though an opportunity was sought after more than four years of the institution of the writ application, at this belated stage. University through its learned Advocate made appearance in this case as back as on 7.6.1993. Even on 26.8.96, this Court fixed the date of hearing with due notice to the parties. 3. University through its learned Advocate made appearance in this case as back as on 7.6.1993. Even on 26.8.96, this Court fixed the date of hearing with due notice to the parties. 3. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 11.8.92 (Annexure-7) is liable to be quashed as being arbitrary and illegal and the order dated 6.8.92 (Anx.8) issued by the Dy. Registrar (Estt.), University of Rajasthan to treat the petitioner as having retired from 30.11.88 should also stand quashed. The University authorities are directed to get the petitioner medically examined by a Medical Board comprising of three Medical Experts, one of which must be a Radiologist and the said Board would give its opinion about the correct age of the petitioner which should be considered and accepted by the University of Rajasthan and on the basis of the said report the University of Rajasthan would treat the writ petitioner to have retired from service, if it is actually found that he ought to have retired after 11.8.92. 4. In this view of the matter, the order dated 11.8.92 (Anx.7) as passed with retrospective operation w.e.f. 30.11.1988 cannot be allowed to stand and is hereby quashed with liberty granted to the University of Rajasthan to proceed in accordance with law. After the University authorities issue an appropriate order of superannuation from a date which would be in conformation with the report of the Medical Board with regard to his correct age, the petitioner would be entitled to retiral benefits including pensionary benefits in accordance with law along with, arrears, if any. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of. *******