K. N. Goyal, J. - (1.) ADMIT.
(2.) AS only a short point is involved, we proceed to dispose of the petition finally. The petitioner was recruited as a Prison Warder on 19th January, 1959. He has now been sought to be retired on superannuation on the assumption that his date of birth was 20th January, 1924. This was challenged by the petitioner, according to whom his correct date of birth was 5th September, 1941, as recorded in the Primary Examination Certificate issued by the Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools on 26-4-53. It is not open to us to consider the correctness of the alleged certificate said to be issued by the Sub-Deputy Inspect -or of Schools. The matter is governed by statutory rules made by the Governor under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution namely, the U. P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, vide annexure A-1 to the counter affidavit. According to these Rules, if a Government servant has passed high school examination or a corresponding examination, then the date of birth recorded in the certificate of that examination shall be conclusive and in any other case, the date of birth or age as recorded in his service book at the time of his recruitment shall be treated as conclusive. The State has produced before us the service book of the petitioner according to which the date of birth recorded was 20-1-24. We find, however, that the service book was prepared on 11-5-63. The contention of the petitioner was that the correct age was recorded at the time of his recruitment in 1959 in the records of the District Jail, Varanasi. We had, therefore, directed the opposite- parties on an earlier date to produce before us the relevant record of the Varanasi District Jail. The same has been produced before us today. It shows that in 1959, at serial no. 190, the petitioner's recruitment was entered. The column relating to age was based on remarks by medical officer. The age then recorded was 24 years. We have further been told by the learned Standing Counsel that the minimum and maximum ages at the time of recruitment were 18 and 25 years respectively. Thus, the entry in this register is consistent with the minimum and maximum age limits. The entry in the service book prepared four years later is not consistent with these age limits. Under the 1974 Rules the entry made at the time of recruitment is alone to be looked into. The register shows that the petitioner had already been confirmed on 1-6-62. Thus the service book was prepared about a year after his confirmation. It is not shown on what basis the date 20th January, 1924 was mentioned in the service book. As such we are unable to accept the same. The age mentioned in the petition cannot be accepted either. It is neither admissible under the 1974 Rules nor it is consistent with the minimum and maximum age limits. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner must be deemed to have attained the age of 24 on 19th January, 1959. He should, therefore, be deemed to have been born on 19th January, 1935. His superannuation age shall be calculated accordingly.
(3.) THE writ petition is allowed to this extent and writ of mandamus is issued accordingly. Petition allowed.;