M. L. Bhat, J. - (1.) THE petitioner claims that his real date of birth is 11th March, 1935 whereas in the school register of Modern High School, Allahabad where he was admitted initially it was written as 20th September, 1932. THE petitioner is said to have been admitted in the said institution on 22-10-1945 and at that point of time the petitioner's age is said to be ten years seven months and thirteen days. THE petitioner is said to have passed High School Examination in the year 1949. On the basis of date of birth recorded in the school register, the petitioner's date of birth entered in the High School Certificate is 20-9-1932. Some other person had got recorded the petitioner's age as 1932 out of his own imagination. THE petitioner's age was not verified from his father. THE petitioner is said to have been informed by some relation that his actual date of birth was 11th March, 1935 which could be verified from the Birth Register maintained at the Collectorate at Allahabad. On inspector of the said register the petitioner came to know about his real date of birth and be collected the documents purporting to show his date of birth as 11th March, 1935. THE documents relied upon by the petitioner are as under : (a) Copy of the birth register for the year 1934-35 relating to village Nagiamai, Tahsil Sirathu, Police Station Saini, district Allahabad; (b) Copy of the extract of Khatauni of the said village; (c) Copy of the certificate issued by the Block Pramukh of the said area; (d) Copy of the affidavit of Ahmad Hasan, who is said to have informed the petitioner about his actual date of birth being 11th March, 1935; (e) Copy of the affidavit of Mohammad Masood, who got the petitioner admitted in the school. (f) Copy of the High School Certificate of his younger brother; (g) Copy of the High School Certificate of his youngest brother; and (h) Copy of the High School Certificate of the petitioner.
(2.) ON the basis of date of birth shown in the High School certificate the petitioner was to retire in September, 1990 but on the basis of the date of birth, which the petitioner claims to be his real date of birth, he is to retire in March 1993. The petitioner is said to have made a representation to the Chief Justice on 8th May, 1989 when he was still in service for making a change in his date of birth and allow him to continue on the post upto 199JUJU JUDGMENT3. He was informed by the Deputy Registrar on 16-6-1989 that his representation was rejected by the Chief Justice. A copy of this order is placed on the record. The petitioner thereafter applied for a certified copy of the order passed by the Chief Justice but the same was not given. The petitioner submits that he is governed by the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976, hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1976'. It is stated by the petitioner that in the matter of correction of date of birth of the officer of the High Court there is no rule or regulation and it is within the powers of the Chief Justice to order an enquiry for correction of date of birth if the same requires to be corrected and if there is material to support the said correction. Under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution the Rule-Making power is with the Chief Justice. The petitioner is also said to have made a representation to the Secretary of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad, respondent No. 3, on 28-4-1990, a copy whereof is placed on record. This representation is said to have been supported by documents. On 17-5-1990 the respondent No 3 informed the petitioner that his representation was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner is said to have made a representation to the Principal, Modern High School, Allahabad on 29-6-1990 supported by documents which also was rejected on 6-7-1990. The respondent No. 3 is said to have mechanically rejected the representation of the petitioner that only clerical mistakes can be corrected. The representation of the petitioner is said to have been rejected by the respondent No. 3 mainly on three grounds ; (i) that it was a case of correction of date of birth; (ii) that it was barred by time; and (iii) that it related to a Government employee.
(3.) THE petitioner assails the findings of the Board and prays for quashing the said findings. THE petitioner also prays that the findings of the High Court conveyed to him by the Deputy Registrar on administrative side be also quashed and a mandamus be issued to them to correct his date of birth. He also prays for quashing of the Government Orders whereby no enquiry with regard to the date of birth, which is entered in the High School Certificate, is permissible as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or in the alternative declaring that these orders do not provide the conclusive rule of evidence for determination of age for the purpose of. retirement. He wants a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents to retire the petitioner from service on the basis of his date of birth as entered in the High School Certificate. It is stated that the Government Orders did not apply to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is an employee of the High Court, therefore, the Government Order dated 28-5-1974 would not apply to him as the same is applicable to the Government servants for whom Rules are made under Article 309 of the Constitution, under which no rule can be made for the High Court Staff. The Government orders dated 28-5-1974 and 14-5- 1983 were not adapted by the High Court. On the other hand, dates of birth in respect of some employees of the High Court were changed from time to time by the Chief Justice. These changes were not clerical in nature. The date of birth recorded in the school register which is the basis of date of birth in the High School certificate cannot be made conclusive by any rule of evidence The said date of birth can be rebutted if it does not represent the real date of birth.;