- (1.) The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has found the matriculation certificate of the employee to be genuine and uncontroverted and has accordingly directed that the date of birth of the employee should be treated as the date which is recorded in the matriculation certificate.
(2.) It is admitted case of the appellant that the employee had passed the matriculation examination before entering into the service. It has not been shown to us as to why the employee, at the time of entering into the service, would give a wrong and earlier date of birth. It is not the case of the appellant that the employee had anything to gain by deliberately giving a wrong date of birth different from one mentioned in his matriculation certificate.
(3.) Therefore, if a wrong date of birth has been recorded in the service records relating to the service which petitioner joined after matriculation, it is obviously a case of mistake or negligence either on the part of the employee or the representative of the employer who was filling up the documents relating to the service.;