H.C.Mital - (1.) SHIVAJI Malviya, the petitioner, admittedly joined the service in the Central Bank of India at Allahabad on 1-1-1961 as a clerla. He was promoted as Officer Grade I and joined as such on 13-3-78 at Zonal Office, Lucknow. At present he is posted as Accountant in Zero Road Branch of the Central Bank at Allahabad. According to him, he had given his date of birth as 29-6-1932 when he entered in the service and the same was recorded in the High School certificate also. In the year 1985 he was required to submit his bio-data after he was promoted as Officer Grade I in the year 1978 and then he noted the discrepancy in the date of birth and found that some body bearing grudge against him just to cause harm to him had made interpolation In his service records. On 20-4-1985 he submitted an application to the Branch Manager with a High School certificate, copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition, and the Branch Manager vide his letter dated 24-4-1985 referred the matter to the Regional Office, Varanasi, a true copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition. In his letter dated 24-4-1985 the Branch Manager had specifically mentioned that the photostat copy of the High School certificate was correct as he had seen the original of the High School certificate and therein the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 29-6-1932. He also recommended for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner again sent a reminder dated 26-9-1989, a true copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition. However, the petitioner did not hear anything from the Regional Office till he received a letter dated 7-2-199U from the Branch Manager which contained the reference of the letter dated 24-1-1990 from the Regional Office that bis request for correction of the age has been rejected as he had not applied earlier in accordance with the Circular Letter dated 2nd of October 1970. The petitioner, however, again sent a representation on 13-2- 1990 but that too was rejected and he was asked to retire on 30-6-1990. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come up to this Court and has filed this writ petition on 19-5-1990.
(2.) THE Central Bank of India has contested this petition and in the counter affidavit it is averred by the Bank that in the Bank records through out the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 29-6-1930 and at no point of time till 1985 he had raised any protest against it. It is also averred that on 30-8-1986 in the bio-data Form submitted by the petitioner he himself has shown his date of birth as 29-6-1930. In the seniority list of the Officers in Junior Management Grade Scale I, which was circulated in all the Branches of the Bank, the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown v as 29-6-1930 and that was also not disputed by the petitioner till 1985. THE seniority list showing the Seniority of various Officers including that of the petitioner as on 1-4-1981 was circulated to all the Branches through the letter dated 5-12-1981. It is denied that any change in the records of the Bank has been made in the date of birth as alleged by the petitioner and that at the last stage when the petitioner was about to retire he has raised this plea for the purpose of extension of service. The fact that in the High School certificate the date of birth of the petitioner is entered as 29-6-1932 has not been disputed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the Bank was can did enough to concede that apparently there appears to be some interpolation in the year of date of birth (29-6-1930) of the petitioner in the records of the Bank. Though a photostat copy of the same has been filed along with the counter affidavit as Annexure CA-1, but the original was also shown in the court and on the face of it is appears that the figures '3' and '0' in "'1930" have been over written with a ball pen while all other numericals are written by ink pen. As far as numerical '3' is concerned in "1930", there is no dispute as according to the petitioner it was '32' while according to the respondents it was '30'. However, to the naked eye it is apparent that there is a clear interpolation on the subsequent figure after '3' and '0' has been written with a ball pen and below it there was some other numerical, may be "2". The numerical '3' is also over written. But it is also apparent that '3' has been subsequently over written by a ball pen. According to the petitioner, the figure was '32' and it has been made '30' while according to the respondents, it was '30' but that prima facie stands belied in view of the interpolation because if it was already 1930, there was no occasion to re-write it with a Ball Pen. Under the circumstances, the benefit must go to the petitioner as it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner himself had access to the record and he himself had interpolated it More over the petitioner if, at all, interpolated he would have tried to make numerical '2' over the figure '0' if earlier the year of birth was mentioned as 1930. That apart, in para 9 of the writ petition interpolation has been specifically alleged while in the counter affidavit it has been stated in paragraph no. 8 that the contents of paragraph nos. 9 to 16 of the writ petition do not call of any comments. Thus the allegations of interpolation in paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition have not been denied. Still it has been maintained that all along in the record of the Bank the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 29-6-1930.
(3.) THE conclusion, therefore, is that it cannot be denied that the date of birth of the petitioner is 29-6-1932 and according to the petitioner the same was recorded, but it has been interpolated by so me body. The next question is as to whether the petitioner should be permitted to raise that dispute at this stage. Before dealing with it, it may also be mentioned that in paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit it has been asserted that the petitioner himself had filled up his bio-data on 30-8-1986 and signed it and thereunder he has shown his date of birth as 29-6-1930. In bis rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has specifically averred that he had mentioned his date of birth in his bU*-data Form on 30-8-1986 as 29-6-1930 because he was told by the Branch Manager Sri R S. P. Srivastava that he should mention the same date of birth as was mentioned in the Bank record since his representation for change of date of birth was already pending consideration and in the event the petitioner's representation was allowed, ho would be permitted to change the date of birth accordingly. He acted bona fide on the said assurance given by the Branch Manager and mentioned his date of birth as 29-6-1930 in his bio-data Form dated 30-6-1986. On behalf of the Bank no efforts has been made to dispute this fact stated in the rejoinder affidavit. Hence, once he had already question the date of birth as contained in the Bank record in the month of April, 1983 and subsequently mentioned the same date of birth on the advice of the Branch Manager, that would not operate as estoppel against the petitioner.;