1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 26th October, 1993, passed by the Tribunal in Application No.25 of 1991, whereby the Tribunal has directed for correction of the date of birth and the consequential implementation, thereof.
2. When the matter was taken-up for hearing, Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for Mr. H.J. Nanavati, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, states that since the interim stay was not granted, the petitioner had been continued in service as 'Lecturer', until the age of superannuation, on the basis of the correction of the date of birth, as ordered by the Tribunal, and therefore, in his submission, this petition has become infructuous by efflux of time.
3. Whereas, the learned AGP submits that if the Tribunal has passed an illegal order, the State Government is justified in approaching this Court and the matter may be examined on merits. However, he is unable to dispute the aspect that the order was passed by the Tribunal as back as on 26th October, 1993 and the present petition was preferred before this Court, challenging the said order, in the year 2002 i.e. roughly after nine years.
4. If the aspect of delay in preferring the petition is considered, it can be said that the delay operates against the petitioner in approaching before this Court for invoking the jurisdiction under Article-226 or 227 of the Constitution. However, on legality and validity of the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present petition, it does appear that the order passed by the Tribunal calls for consideration, more particularly, when the birth date is prayed to be corrected after about 20 years of service. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances that after the notice was issued by this Court in the present petition, no interim order was passed and the petition remained pending for about 10 years, the order of the Tribunal has operated and the petitioner has actually worked on the basis of the corrected date of birth and she has also retired as back as in the year 2007, no useful purpose would be served in deciding the questions raised in this petition.
5. Under the circumstances, the present petition is DISPOSED OF, as having become infructuous. Rule is discharged.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) Umesh/