Facing superannuation, he moved the High Court to change his date of birth as February 9, 1961.
As the single judge had refused, he approached a division bench, which in 2008 upheld the single judge’s order.
The petitioner was given the appointment only on the basis of his year of birth as 1960. Otherwise, his candidature would have been rejected on ground of shortage of age, the bench had pointed out.
The petitioner filed the present review application challenging the bench’s order nearly after nine years.
Dismissing it too, Justice Venugopal, who wrote the order for the bench, said “such a prayer at the fag end of a person’s career is per se not to be entertained, as the same might affect the promotions of others, who are yearning for years below him and it would cause undoubtedly an irreparable injury and hardship to them.”
“Moreover, the power of review is not to be confused with an appellate one. If the applicant is aggrieved by the finding of the court, the remedy is not review,” the bench said.
Under the guise of review, the court would not re-hear the parties on point of law afresh, the bench said and dismissed the plea.