JUDGMENT
S.U. Khan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The question to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether one of the two dates of birth of petitioner as entered in his service book i.e. 10.10.1948 was rightly scored off? The age of retirement of Class of employees to which petitioner belongs is 60 years. According to the petitioner he should have been permitted to continue in service until 10.10.2008, however, he was wrongly retired on 1.8.1998. Original service book was summoned and perused by the court. Photostat copy of the first page of original service book was directed to be filed by learned standing counsel who has filed the said Photostat copy. On the first page of the service book, certificate issued by C.M.O dated 1.8.1986 was annexed. Photocopy of the said certificate has also been filed. These two copies have also been filed along with other affidavits. The certificate was issued under Rule 10 of Fundamental Rules on the proforma given there under. The title of the certificate was Certificate of Fitness for government servants. In the certificate which was on the printed proforma as prescribed by Rule 10 of Fundamental Rules, the last sentence is to the following effect. The candidates age according to his own statement is 48 years and by appearance about forty eight years.
3. In the service book of the petitioner the entry which was scored off was to the effect that according to the School certificate date of birth is 10.10.1948. This entry was made against Item No. 5 relating to date of birth. Against the said column first the following entry was made “1.8.1986 Ko 48 Varsh” (48 years on 1.8.1986).
4. Thereafter the entry of 10.10.1948 was written. Apparently the first entry was made on the basis of certificate granted by C.M.O which was also attached to page 1 of the service book. Learned standing counsel also stated that the said entry was made in pursuance of and on the basis of certificate issued by the C.M.O.
5. In this writ petition, I passed an order on 2.4.2003 (on separate sheet). Through the said order, I directed the Executive Engineer U.P. P.W.D Allahabad to decide the question as to what was the position of entry of date of birth in the service book when it was prepared and who scored off the figure 10.10.1948 and under what circumstances. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and copy of enquiry report was filed along with supplementary affidavit sworn on 23.10.2003. The enquiry report runs into 18 pages, each page containing about 35 lines. Enquiry report bears the date 28.6.2003 and signatures of Executive Engineer Provincial Division PWD Allahabad.
6. The Executive Engineer, who has given the report dated 28.06.2003 has done an excellent job. The report is at par with the judgment of a Competent Judicial Officer. About 25 concerned Officers/ Officials, who could have any knowledge of the facts regarding preparation of the service books and scoring off one of the entries against date of birth of petitioner were examined by the Executive Engineer. The statements have meticulously been examined. The Executive Engineer asked precise, searching questions from the officers/ officials, who were called by him. Sri Dileep Kumar, Assistant Engineer gave report that in 1994, he scored off the entry of 10.10.1948 from the service book of the petitioner. Sri Dileep Kumar further stated that the petitioner and the then camp-clerk (shivir lipik) tried to persuade him to score off other entry, i.e. “01.08.1986 ko 48 varsh.” Sri Dileep Kumar further stated that after scoring off the entry of 10.10.1948, he put his initials thereupon. Several concerned officers and officials stated that when service book was prepared, Sri Shitla Prasad was the concerned clerk and the service book was prepared by him and entries were in his handwriting. Accordingly, statement of Sri Shitla Prasad was also recorded on 24.06.2003, which is given on Page-14 of the report. Sri Shitla Prasad categorically stated that entries in the service book of the petitioner were made by him on the direction/ dictation of camp clerk-Sri Krishan Chand. It was further stated by Shitla Prasad that in the service book of petitioner, entries against item No. 1 to 7 were in his handwriting but the entries were made on the direction of Sri Krishan Chand and petitioner was also present and Sri Krishan Chand was dictating the entries after asking and seeking relevant information from the petitioner. Sri Shitla Prasad categorically stated that he made the entry of “01.08.1986 ko 48 varsh” at the time of preparation of service book and thereafter the second entry of 10.10.1948 according to the school certificate was written by him after two to three months and the said entry was also made by him on the direction of camp-clerk.
7. From the above, it is quite clear that first entry of “01.08.1986 ko 48 varsh” was made in the service book and after few months, the other entry “school certificate ke anusar 10.10.1948” was made. The alleged school certificate was obtained on 02.08.1986, i.e. one day after the report of C.M.O. Copy of that certificate is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which shows that petitioner passed Class-V and left the school on 19.05.1962. Firstly, no reason has been given for obtaining the certificate so late and secondly, Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U. P. has held that school certificate below standard of Class-X in respect of date of birth is not an authentic document particularly when it has not been issued at the time when the person concerned left the school. Moreover, the fact that it was obtained on the next date on which C.M.O. gave the certificate makes it unbelievable and manufactured document.
8. It is correct that under Rule-10 of Fundamental Rules, C.M.O. is required to give certificate of fitness and not certificate in respect of age. Moreover, in the certificate, C.M.O. has not determined the age. He has only mentioned that petitioner stated that his age was 48 years and by appearance also he looked about 48 years of age.
9. Whatever may be basis of first entry of date of birth in the service book, subsequently it cannot be changed unless there is some rule in that regard and representation is made promptly for change of date of birth. Petitioner did not make any representation. The camp-clerk got the second entry of 10.10.1948 made in the service book after vew months of the first entry, which was not permissible. The Executive Engineer in his report has also mentioned that even the school, which had allegedly issued the certificate to the petitioner, was contacted by him but the said school was found locked. The Executive Engineer has also referred to U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, according to which in case an employee has not passed Class-X, the date of birth entered in the service book at the time of entry in the service book should be deemed to be final and no application or representation for change of the said date of birth would be entertained. Rule-2 of the said Rules is quoted below:
[2. Determination of correct date of birth or age.- The date of birth a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government service or where a Government servant has not passed any such examinations aforesaid or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation of his service, including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date of age in any circumstances whatsoever.
10. I fully agree with the finding recorded by the Executive Engineer. It is more than clear that the first entry in the service book was “01.08.1986 ko 48 varsh.” Subsequent entry was made after two or three months of the first entry and that also on the direction of camp-clerk, which was illegal and utterly unauthorized. The subsequent entry was, therefore, rightly scored off.
11. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.
12. Office is directed to supply a copy of this judgment free of cost to Sri S.P. Mishra, learned standing counsel, within a week.