Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE contention advanced is that the date of birth of the petitioner has been corrected by the Principal of the institution which stands corroborated with the date of birth mentioned in the High School Certificate. It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1974. The High School Certificate indicates that he passed the High School in the same year. The petitioner did not make any effort to get his date of birth corrected in the service -book which was entered as 30.124949. The Principal is stated to have corrected the date of birth in the year 2006 i.e. after 32 years of service of the petitioner. The finding recorded in the impugned order is that the Principal of the institution had no authority to carry out the said correction at the fag end of the career of the petitioner. The aforesaid finding recorded in the impugned order is in tune with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and another v. Shiv Narain Upadhyay : 2005 (106) FLR 910 (SC): 2005 (33) AIC 116 : 2005(6)SCC 49. Learned Counsel contends that the High School date of birth should be accepted as the correct date of birth. Be that as it may, the High School Certificate was very much available to the petitioner and it is his fault that he did not get his date of birth corrected at the appropriate time.
(3.) THIS might have not been done presumably because in case the date of birth of the petitioner is accepted to be correct as recorded in the High School Certificate, then he was a minor at the time of his initial appointment and his very appointment would become invalid.;