ORDER
Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Shri J.P. Singh on behalf of the petitioner, Shri N.C. Nishad on behalf of respondents.
2. Director Recruitment, Recruitment Office Amethi, Sultanpur published an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment in Indian Army selections whereof were scheduled to take place at Allahabad between 16.1.2004 to 23.1.2004. Under the advertisement, candidates belonging to the district of Sultanpur, Rae Bareily and Kaushambi were required to appear at Allahabad New Cantt. On 19th and 20th of January, 2004.
3. Petitioner being a permanent resident of Kaushambi accordingly appeared for selections at Allahabad for Soldier
(G.D. Category). It is stated that after physical examination the petitioner also participated in the written examination, the petitioner was successful Vide telegram dated 9th March, 2004 the petitioner was required to report at the Branch Office at Amethi with all original documents. In the original certificates produced by the petitioner his High School examination certificate issued by the Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 13th December, 1985.
4. Although there was no material before the Recruiting Officer to have any doubts with regards to the age of the petitioner specifically in view of the High School certificate produced by the petitioner, he however directed the petitioner to appear before the, medical specialist for investigation on 21.4.2004 with regards to his age. The petitioner complied with the directions so issued, the Radiology Specialist submitted his report to the effect that the age of the petitioner appears to be more than 20 years.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid medical report the respondents vide order dated 21.4.2004 declared the petitioner unfit on the ground that age of bones of the petitioner is more than 20 years.
6. It is against the said action of the respondents that the present writ petition has been filed.
7. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that there is no justification, to disbelieve the age of the petitioner as mentioned in the High School certificate, even otherwise the report of the Radiology Specialist only recorded that the age of the petitioner appears to be more than 20 years. The maximum age limit prescribed for recruitment as Soldier was 21 years and, therefore, even if the report of the Radiology Specialist is accepted the petitioner was not disqualified in any manner or he was beyond the maximum age fixed.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Despite further time being granted absolutely no explanation has been furnished as to under what circumstances the date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in the High School certificate could have been doubted by the Recruiting Officer. Counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any rule or provision under which the Requiting Officer could refer the candidate for medical examination for determination of his age even where the High School certificate has been produced.
9. I have heard Counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the present writ petition.
10. In paragraph 34 of the counter affidavit the respondents have tried to justifying the action taken against the petitioner. It is worthwhile to reproduce paragraph 34 and 43 of the Counter Affidavit:
34. That since his stated age was 18 years 3 months according to High School certificate on the planned day of enrolment (i.e. 26th March, 2004) and his biological age was determined to be definitely more than 20 years, the difference of 01 year 9 months or more sufficiently proves that the petitioner has willfully concealed his true age and provided false information in writing about his date of birth both to U.P. Board of Education and military authorities. (Reference petitioner’s High School certificate and Mark Sheet at Annexure VI to the attached writ petition and Annexure counter affidavit-6 of this counter affidavit).
43. That the contents of paragraph No. 21 ground (A) of the writ petition are factually incorrect. Determination of age is one of the responsibilities of Enrolling Officer. There is no denying the fact that date of birth entered in education certificate, particularly High School certificate is normally accepted at the time of enrollment. But candidates on their part are also required to give correct age through their documents/statements. In order to detect candidates using unfair means to seek enrollment by reducing their age such cases are referred to Military Hospital authorities for their decision. As the date of birth entered in High School certificate in such fraud cases can be verified through well established medical norms only. The petitioner has attempted to get enrolled by fraudulent means by giving false proof of age. His candidature thus stands automatically rejected irrespective of the fact whether he still fulfills other eligibility criteria or not.
11. In the opinion of the Court the stand so taken by the respondents is totally misconceived. It is admitted that the petitioner had passed High School examination in the year 1885. The High School examination certificate issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad U.P., Allahabad, records the date of birth of the petitioner as 13.12.1985. Under the provisions of Section 7(7) of the Intermediate Education Act, the result of the petitioner has been declared in the official gazette. In view of the aforesaid facts read with Section 79 to 81 of the Evidence Act, the High School certificate produced by the petitioner is to be taken to be factually correct, unless and until established by some cogent evidence to be otherwise. The respondents have disclosed no material to doubt the correctness of the date of birth as mentioned in the High School certificate nor they could have insisted upon the petitioner to get himself medically examined. Even the report of the Radiology Specialist which is based on mere presumption drawn from certain biological examination records the approximate age of the petitioner as more than 20 years only. The report even if accepted did not establish that the petitioner was beyond the maximum age limit prescribed. There is hardly any appreciable difference in the date of birth as recorded in the High School certificate viz. a viz. the age presumed under the report of the Radiology Specialist. In these circumstances the respondents were not justified in declaring the petitioner unfit for the post of Soldier (G.D.). The order dated 21.4.2004 is quashed. The respondents are commanded to admit the petitioner as Soldier (G.D.) within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Respondent no. 3. Writ petition is allowed.