- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri V. K. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. S. Baghel, learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent of the parties this writ petition is disposed of under Second proviso Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court, 1952. In this petition the order dated 19-1-1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) has been challenged whereby the petitioner after completing 60 years of age was to retire on 31-12-1996 treating the date of birth of the petitioner as 4-12-1936. According to the petitioner he is High School pass from Board of High School and Intermediate Education Allahabad in short called 'board' and had joined as an Assistant Librarian in year 1965 in the Allahabad University where the date of birth of petitioner was recorded in the service book as 4-12-1936 the same was at one time verified by the petitioner and the competent authority, however the petitioner continued in service without any break and was retired on 31-12- 1996. The petitioner claims his date of birth as 19-8-1942 and asserts that the name of the father of petitioner is Nankai Lal Pandey alias Kashi Prasad Pandey and both names are of his father, while entering in the service in University the name of the father of the petitioner was written as Sri Kashi Prasad Pandey, but his original High School certificate was lost which was obtained from the 'board' in duplicate and transfer certificate from Shri Radharaman Inter College, Daraganj, Allahabad in both these certificates procured by the petitioner the date of birth of the petitioner is 19-8-1942 and name of his father as Nankai Lal Pandey. Supplementary affidavit was also filed as Annexure 4 endeavouring to explain how his father's name was entered in the school records as Nankai Lal and Kashi Prasad in the service records of University respectively. According to the petitioner despite repeated representations no heed was taken therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for alteration of date of birth.
(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the respondents. As asserted in para 10 of the counter affidavit the petitioner's father name was mentioned as Kashi Prasad Pandey and not Nankai Lal Pandey in all the records of the University. In the past, petitioner had filed as many as two writ petitions as indicated below, in this Court seeking various reliefs such as, salary, promotion etc. and in all the writ petitions he has sworn affidavits showing his father's name as Kashi Prasad Pandey. In none of the affidavits sworn by him, he had shown his father's name as Nankai Lal Pandey or father's name Nankai Lal Pandey alias Kashi Prasad Pandey. The earlier petitions filed by the petitioner are as under: (i) Writ Petition No. (sic) of 1998 (ii) Writ Petition No. 3169 of 1990 (iii) Contempt Petition No. 1409 of 1994. According to the contents of paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it has been indicated that the High School certificate which the petitioner has enclosed, clearly demonstrate that it was not his certificate in as much as, the name of the father has been mentioned as Nankai Lal Pandey whereas admittedly, the petitioner's father name was Kashi Prasad Pandey and it is pertinent to note that the duplicate certificate of the High School Examination was issued to the petitioner on 23-5-1997 i. e. , after the retirement of the petitioner. According to para 12 of the counter affidavit the transfer certificates enclosed with the writ petition reveals that the petitioner's father name is not Kashi Prasad Pandey. The petitioner has shown that he passed his High School examination from Radha Raman Inter College, Allahabad and supplementary examination has been alleged to be passed from Government Inter College, Allahabad and in none of the certificates, the petitioner's father name was ever mentioned as Kashi Prasad Pandey. It is significant to mentioned that the petitioner has enclosed the duplicate copy of the High School certificate, however, he has not made any averment that he got published notice in the newspaper regarding loss of his certificate. The duplicate High School certificate does not bear the signature of Secretary of the Board. The petitioner has first time filed the duplicate certificates, documents showing the name of his father as Nankai Lal Pandey. The petitioner has started claim of service on duplicate certificate of High School Certificate and Transfer Certificate at the fag end of the service career and according to the respondents the documents/records of the University reveal following aspects given as below: (i) Financial Statement of Allahabad University from 1-4-1976 to 31-3-1977 the petitioner's name figure at Sl. No. 15, where column of date of birth has been left blank. (ii) The list of teachers and employees of Allahabad University of the year 1995-96 wherein the petitioner's name figured at Sl. No. 2 under the Library Department shows the date of birth as 4-12- 1936. (iii) Letter dated 22-9-1997 of the Secretary, Intermediate Education Board in response to the letter of the University dated 14-8-1997 wherein the name of petitioner has been shown as Shanker Lal Pandey son of Shri Nankai Lal Pandey.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the University has also produced order sheet dated 4-11-2003 of this Court and the financial statement. According to the respondents the certificate on which the petitioner has placed reliance does not belong to him. In (2003) 1 UPLBEC 280, Bimlesh Sharma v. Electricity Board, Office of Chief Engineer, U. P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad, Moradabad and others, where date of birth entered in the service book was to be changed by the wife of the deceased employee when the husband of the writ petitioner had died after retirement by disputing the change of date of birth. This Court has held disputed question of fact cannot be investigated in the writ petition and the date of birth once entered in the service book of the petitioner under U. P. Recruitment to Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, was treated to be correct supported by the relevant documents and supporting entries in the service book and the change of the date of birth disputing the same on the basis of fitness certificate were not treated to be relevant proof of age and such controversy and disputed question of fact could not be resolved by investigating the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the parties concerned in the writ proceedings.;