Vikramaditya Prasad, J. - (1.) THIS is one more case in which the petitioner has challenged the recording of the date of birth as entered into Annexure -2. According to the petitioner, his actual date of birth is 4.12.1950, which is proved from the Medical Book issued by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner prays for issuance of mandamus upon the respondents to make necessary correction in the date of birth as recorded in the personal file of the petitioner and not to make interpolation in it (emphasis stressed).
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner has been countered by the respondents. In a supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents on the direction of the Court, the Original Form giving the detailed bio data of the petitioner interviewed for the post of Khalasi on 29.6.1972 has been produced, regarding which some doubt had been expressed by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner. Another document is Annexure -A. These are the personal data of the petitioner. The age of the petitioner as on 15.12.1972 has been shown as 27 years and this has been signed by the petitioner. Originally, it appears that the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 4.12.1950 and the estimated age was 22 years. The aforesaid estimated age of 27 years as on 15.12.1972 was written after penning through this line (4.12.1950, 22 years).
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents has said that when the petitioner had appeared after interview and the personal data have been filled up, which was signed by the petitioner, as in Annexure -B, the date of birth was not given, but on 29.6.1972 his estimated age was 27 years and when such a mistake was detected in Annexure -A, then it was corrected and the petitioner signed this corrected/freshly estimated age, which is in conformity with Annexure -A.;