- (1.) S. C. Verma, J. The petitioner has challenged the order of U. P. Public Services Tribunal dated 6. 6. 1989 wherein the prayer of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the service book has been rejected.
(2.) THE order of the Tribunal has been assailed mainly on the ground that the respondents inspite of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court dated 8-12-1988 did not consider the date of birth as recorded in the original record when the petitioner entered into service. THE original record of the petitioner which was prepared at the time when he joined the service of the Cor poration has been taken into account. In absence of original record, the date of birth as recorded in the School Leaving Certifi cate and the medical report is liable to be accepted and the Tribunal committed error of law in disbelieving the same. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal earlier against the orders of the Corporation dated 5. 2. 1986 issued by the Regional Manager and the order dated 15-3-1986 issued by the Deputy General Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Cor poration, Varanasi retiring the petitioner from service on the basis of his date of birth recorded as 2. 5. 1928. The claim petition was allowed by order dated 19-1-87 but the order was set aside by Hon'ble High Court in writ petition No : 4774 of 1987. The Hon'ble High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the case and to examine the original records to be produced by the Cor poration. The Tribunal after considering the material on record was of the view that the date of birth of the petitioner, if taken to be as 1st July 1937, on entry into service in the year 1952, he would be only 15 years. In accordance with the service Rules, the mini mum age of entry in service is 18 years and this was a strong circumstance which went against the petitioner to disbelieve the date of birth claimed by him. The Tribunal fur ther held that in 1977 when the services of the petitioner from the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways Department were transferred to the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, the service book prepared by the Corporation showed his date of birth as 2-5-1928. The petitioner has appended his signatures without any objection and it was only at the time of retirement for the first time, the petitioner has disputed the date of birth and also prayed for correction.
(3.) THE petitioner on the other hand has stated that he had filed the repesentation dated 23-10-1977 protesting that his date of birth is 1st July 1937 and not 2. 5. 1928. THE Tribunal held that the said representation dated 23-10-1977 is a forged document and there is no record to show that such repre sentation was received in the office of the Corporation in 1977. Moreover the petitioner had not. been able to give any explanation nor placed any material on record as to what transpired after 1977 and why he kept quiet and did not press his representation and it was only at the time when the notice for retirement was given, he has laid his claim. The evidence of School Leaving Certificate issued on 19. 12. 1985 as also the certificate of the Administrator, Town Area Mohammdabad Gohana issued on 9. 6. 1977 and the medical report were not accepted. The entires of the Schools Leaving Certifi cate with regard to the fact that the petitioner left School on 13. 7. 1946 has been certified after 39 years on 19. 12. 1985 and in the absence of the original record created doubt and did not inspire confidence for placing any reliance. There is no explana tion as to why these documents if they were available could not be produced in 1977 when the said representation was filed. The doucments in the above circumstances were not accepted as correct and positive evidence for placing reliance to alter the date of birth. On the basis of the above findings the claim petition was dismissed.;