G.N.Ray, J. - (1.) The acceptability of the age recorded in the Matriculation Certificate overriding other antecedent facts and statement in the service record is the subject matter for consideration in the instant appeal. The writ petitioner respondent No. 1 made an application. for appointment in Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Limited. At the time of making such application admittedly the father of the applicant was an. employee of the said company and it is an admitted position that at the relevant time, person not attaining the age of 18 years was not eligible to get an appointment. It is also an admitted position that at the relevant time the appellant had passed the Matriculation examination and the certificate regarding the age was in possession of the writ petitioner. Since the age noted in the certificate stood in the way of getting an appointment in the company, the petitioner made a statement to the effect that this age was wrongly recorded in the Matriculation Certificate but he was above 18 years of age at the relevant time. As a matter of fact, his father, an employee of the said company, alarmed an affidavit, inter alia, declaring that his son was more than 18 years of age and the age recorded in the Matriculation Certificate was not correct. On such affidavit being alarmed by the father and a declaration being given by the respondent No. 1, his appointment was given and he continued in service for long thirty five years. When the time for superannuation came close the respondent made an application for revision of his age and contended that his correct age has been recorded in the Matriculation Certificate and reliance was placed on such recording of age. The company refused to accept the case of the writ petitioner respondent and thereafter the instant writ petition was moved before this Court.
(2.) The learned trial Judge allowed he writ petition by directing that the respondent authority should consider the age of the writ petitioner with due regard to the Matriculation certificate which, according to the trial Judge, was undoubtedly the best available evidence in support of the date of his birth. Being aggrieved by such decision, the company has come up with the instant appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, however, by an interim order, the operation of the order passed by the learned trial Judge was stayed.
(3.) It is an admitted position that even on the basis of the age recorded in the Matriculation Certificate, the respondent has attained the age superannuation. Hence there is no occasion to keep him in service even if the age as per the Matriculation Certificate is accepted by the Court. The Matriculation Certificate is a contemporaneous document and due weight should be given to the age recorded in the Matriculation Certificate, but the age recorded in the Matriculation Certificate cannot be binding in all cases. There may be cases when because of an erroneous statement of the age by the guardian of the student at the time of admission, a wrong age is entered in the School records and such erroneous recording appears in the Matriculation Certificate. The learned counsel has contended that in the instant case the writ petitioner respondent himself being fairly educated, and, a Matriculate with the Matriculation Certificate already in his possession denied the correctness of age recorded in Matriculation Certificate in no uncertain terms. Even the father affirmed an affidavit by giving the correct age of his son. That affidavit must be held to be a very convincing document because the father is expected to know the age of his son. It was only on the basis of such declaration given by the writ petitioner respondent about his age thereby denouncing the correctness of the age recorded in the Matriculation Certificate and also on the basis of the affidavit affirmed by the father, The writ petitioner respondent was taken in service. The learned counsel has very strongly contended that even assuming that the age recorded in the Matriculation Certificate is correct and the declarations given by the writ petitioner respondent and his father were incorrect, the writ petitioner respondent having resorted to falsehood deliberately for getting an appointment which he would not have otherwise got should not be permitted to ask a further premium on his own wrong. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the writ court of equity and should not encourage any benefit to a party not coming with a clean hand.;