Virendra Kumar, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the grievance of the petitioner is that the order of his retirement has been passed wrongly, inasmuch as his correct date of birth is 18.8.1936 and not 15.1.1930. Affidavits have been exchanged in this case.
(2.) THE petitioner was a chaukidar in Chet Ram Singh Inter. College. He was appointed on 1.4.1972. Originally the date of birth of the petitioner which was entered in his Service Book, was 15.1.1930. Subsequently his date of birth has noted as 18.8.1936 which was again struck off and original date of 15.1.1930 was re -entered. This is the basis of the grievance of the petitioner. According to the petitioner the original entry of 15.1.1930 was made without there being any proof of his date of birth and it was not correct. In 1975 he was asked by the Principal (since retired) Sri Ram Pal Singh to bring the medical certificate in proof of his age, whereupon he appeared before the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Etah and got the certificate dated 18.8.1975 contained in Annexure -2. In this medical certificate, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer opined that on examination his age appeared to be 39 years. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, thereafter the Principal of the college ordered for correction of his date of birth on the basis of the medical certificate. Thus 18.8.1936 was noted as his correct date of birth after striking off the entry of 15.1.1930 earlier recorded in the Service Book. His stand is that on the basis of corrected date of birth, he is entitled to remain in service till 18.8.1996. Subsequently a notice was given to the petitioner contained in Annexure -1 dated 18.7.1988 to this effect that his correct date of birth was 15.1.1930 and as he is completing 60 years, his retirement is due in the month of January, 1990.
(3.) FROM the side of the opposite party No. 2 counter affidavits of the Head Clerk of the College, Sri N.P. Singh have been filed to this effect that the petitioner has submitted a medical certificate at his own instance without being asked to furnish the same by the deponent and on that basis there was inserted the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.8.1936 after striking off his original date of birth in his service Book which was 15.1.1930. Thus this change in date having been effected in the service Book in an unauthorised manner, it cannot be acted upon. And on the other hand the petitioner was to retire rightly on the basis of the entry of 15.1.1930. According to the contesting opposite party it is a case of unauthorised interpolation at the instance of the petitioner who had access to the service Book. In the counter affidavit it is further asserted that on coming to know about the interpolation the petitioner was called and he expressed his apology for the interpolation and thereafter the original date of birth, i.e., 15.1.1930 was restored in the service record of the petitioner. The assertions are denied by the petitioner in rejoinder affidavits.;