D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 26.12.1926 in the service record. The petitioner had produced sometime in 1978 a School Certificate showing his date of birth as 15.7.1935. According to Mr, Arun Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner at the time of entry cannot be the correct date of birth since in 1960 when he entered the service he was found over-aged. Though in the seniority list dated 2.1.1981 it was pointed out that the petitioner's age which was not recorded in the seniority list would be recorded on the basis of School Certificate issued by the Basic Education Officer. Rai Bareilly. Accordingly, the petitioner had produced in 1985, a certificate countersigned by the District Basic Education Officer showing the date of birth as on 15.7.1935. Relying on regulation 13 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter called as the 1975 Regulation). Mr. Gupta submits that it is only the School Certificate which is to be accepted as the reliable document for proof of age and no other document could be entertained. He relies on the decisions rendered in the cases of Chhote Lal v. District Inspector of Schools, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1247. Nalni Ranjan Vidyarthi v. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office Bombay and others, 1991 (62) FLR 780 and Mahendra Nath Choubey v. The Superintendent Engineer and others, 1990 (16) ALR 87 (Sum.) : 1990 (3) UPLBEC 1784, and contends that the change of date of birth could be made only after giving opportunity to the petitioner.
(2.) In the circumstances be contends that the petitioner could not have been retired on the basis of the date of birth recorded in his service book as 26.12.1926, therefore, the prayers, made in the writ petition should be allowed.
(3.) Mr. A. Kumar, learned Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, relying on various documents which are annexed in the counter-affidavit as annexures contends that the petitioner had given the date of birth at the time of his entry as 26.12.1926 and in support thereof he had produced horoscope wherein the date of birth appears to be in 1927 and that subsequently in 1978 has produced school certificate showing his date of birth as 15.7.1935. By reason of wide difference, the petitioner was referred to Chief Medical Officer who had opined his age on the date of examination was 52 years. Accordingly in the record of the Office, his date of birth was taken as recorded in the service record. There is no order, according to him, seeking to alter the petitioner's age. On the other hand, the petitioner sought to alter his age as recorded in the service book. Since the question is a finding of fact and had been decided, therefore, it is not open to this Court to interfere with the same. If the petitioner is aggrieved, it is open to him to establish his claim in a civil suit.;