Bhanwar Singh, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Annexures-4 and 6, whereby the petitioner's date of birth was approved to be as 8.6.1935 and accordingly, he was directed to superannuate on 30.6.1993, i.e., the last date of the month in that year. Another writ of mandamus has been prayed for commanding the opposite parties to accept the 8th July, 1937 as the petitioner's genuine date of birth and accordingly continue him in service until 31.7.1995.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on July 22, 1954 by the Assistant General Manager, Moradabad. He earned applause and appreciation from his superior authorities and during the course of his career, he was promoted first as Assistant Booking Clerk and later as Booking Clerk. With the incentives of promotions one after the other, he further accelerated in his job as a result of which he was appointed as Traffic Inspector (Third Category) and sometimes thereafter he was promoted to the post of Senior Centre Incharge. In December, 1992, the Managing Director of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.S.R.T.C.) appointed him, on promotion, as Traffic Superintendent and he continued to hold the said post until filing of this writ petition. It appears that in his Service Book, his date of birth was not correctly mentioned at the time of his joining the service, although he had submitted his High School certificate in proof of his educational qualification with age. Whereas in the High School certificate, his date of birth is recorded as 8.7.1937, it was wrongly entered as 8.6.1935 in his Service Book. According to his correct date of birth as recorded in his High School certificate, he was to attain the age of superannuation on 31.7.1995 but he was served with a notice dated 21.5.1992 by the Additional Chief Managing Director, Lucknow, whereby it was conveyed to him that he was scheduled to retire on June 30, 1993. He lodged a protest and moved a representation dated 5.7.1992 with the allegation that the date of birth as recorded in the High School certificate will determine the date of retirement in accordance with the Rules framed in 1974 and 1980. However, his representation was rejected vide order dated 5.6.1993. Since the rejection order dated 5.6.1993 was not in conformity with the Rules, the petitioner has prayed for its being quashed. It has been termed to be as illegal and arbitrary.
(3.) On behalf of the U.P.S.R.T.C. and other opposite parties, Sri Harish Kumar, General Manager (Personnel) filed his counter-affidavit asserting therein that the petitioner himself had given his date of birth as 8.6.1935 at the time of joining his service and after the entry was made, he signed the Service Book. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had concealed the High School certificate while entering the service probably with a view to secure a job at the age of 17 years, i.e., when he would have been a minor. Obviously thus he had not emerged out with clean hands and as such he was not entitled to derive advantage of his own mischief. Throughout his service career, he never made an effort for change of his date of birth in his Service Book and it was only at the fag-end of his service career that he moved a representation for such change and that too only after he had been served with a notice informing him that he was scheduled to retire on 30.6.1993. For all these reasons, the writ petition deserves dismissal.;