JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed in the post of L. T. Grade Teacher in the concerned Institution on 15th July, 1967 when the date of birth was entered in his service record as on 1st July, 1937 on the basis of the High School Certificate wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as on 1st July, 1937. The School authority issued a show-cause notice on the petitioner on 28th September, 1995 alleging that from the record of his admission in the year 1949 and the Middle Examination and in the Amar Shaheed Inter College. Bewar. Mainpuri, where the petitioner was admitted after passing the Middle Examination and Rashtriya Vidya Mandir Inter College, Akbarpur, Farrukhabad from where the petitioner passed the High School Examination and Sri Tilak Vidyalaya Inter College, Firozabad from where the petitioner passed the Intermediate Examination in the year 1954, it was apparent that the date of birth of the petitioner was 8th June. 1934. Therefore, he should explain why he should not be, on attaining the age of 60 years on 30th June, 1994 on the allegation that he had suppressed the said date of birth and wrongly given the date of birth as 1st July, 1937. By an order dated 30th October, 1995 which is Annexure '14' to the writ petition, the petitioner was relieved from service pursuant to a Resolution dated 22nd October. 1995 with effect from 7th June, 1995. It was mentioned In the said order that despite opportunity being given to the petitioner, he did not explain instead he had sent a registered cover containing a torn newspaper. It is this order which has been challenged by means of the present writ petition.
2. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded on the High School Certificate as on 1st July, 1937 and the same was entered in the service record, the School authority cannot go back and rely upon other evidences as sought to be alleged in the order dated 30th October. 1995. Unless it is conclusively found that the petitioner's date of birth has been wrongly recorded in the Service Book. there is no scope for correction thereof by the Committee of Management. According to him, even if there may be any date appearing In any record, the same would be a disputed question of fact which the School authority Is not authorised to substitute on the face of the date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate and the Service Book which has not been disputed so long and had been allowed to exist for such a long time. In case such a decision is taken by the School authority, it would be usurping the jurisdiction of the civil court and deciding a dispute which is apparently borne out by the High School Certificate. He contends further that there are certain provision in the Government Servant Rules for treating the date mentioned in the High School Certificate to be the correct date of birth. He fairly concedes that no such similar Rule has been prescribed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act or the Regulations framed thereunder.
3. Mr. Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the contention of Mr. Khare and contends that the School Authority has jurisdiction to correct the date of birth if it is wrongly recorded. In the present case, in absence of any specific rule relating to the acceptance of the date of birth in the High School Certificate, it is open to the School authority to question the genuineness thereof and come to the decision of its own on the basis of materials available. The School authority had given opportunity to the petitioner to contest the same which the petitioner had avoided to do. The record clearly indicates which according to him is not disputed that the petitioner's date of birth was 8th June. 1934 which he had concealed and recorded as on 1st July, 1937 on the basis of the High School Certificate. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order impugned.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, It appears from the impugned order, as translated at the Bar, that the authority had relied upon certain documents to show that the date of birth of the petitioner was 8th June, 1934. It has referred to documents relating to the Middle Examination in which the petitioner had appeared in 1949 and the admission records relating to his High School and Intermediate studies. But it has not been specified in which document the date of birth was recorded as 8th June, 1934 though a general allegation has been made. Mr. Ravi Kant has not been able to point out that the school authority had relied upon a particular document wherein the date of birth was given as on 8th June, 1934. On the other hand, it appears that it was mentioned about the High School Examination in which the petitioner had appeared in 1952. But from the very High School Certificate in which the petitioner had appeared in 1952 the date of birth appears to be 1st July, 1937. The Certificate is Annexure 'l' to the writ petition. That the date of birth of the petitioner as on 1st July, 1937 is recorded in the High School Certificate is not disputed in his usual fairness by Mr. Ravi Kant. He has also fairly refrained from disputing that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as on 1st July, 1937 in the service record. The date of birth as recorded on the date of entry in the service record has not been disputed so long and was allowed to exist for such a long time and the same is also supported by the High School Certificate. In absence of fresh material to show that the said two entries are ingenuine or incorrect or wrong, it is not possible to come to a finding that the said date was recorded wrongly. Unless it is clearly apparent on the face of the record, the Managing Committee is not supposed to enter into a disputed fact and usurp the authority and jurisdiction of the civil court in deciding such a controversial question. If there are certain materials which apparently show sufficiently that the date was wrongly recorded, then the school authority may enter into the said question but that too in appropriate circumstances, where there would be very little scope of casting doubt with regard to the genuineness of the entries made. Though, however, Mr. Ravi Kant is right in his submission that the school authority had jurisdiction and the right to correct entries in the Service Book but such a course is open to the Committee of Management only when there are sufficient materials to show that the entry is incorrect and wrong and cannot be supported by such material or there is apparent discrepancy in the records particularly the High School Certificate Itself and the date of entry in the service record or such other record that may be accepted. In the present case, to my mind, It does not appear that this Is a case which calls within the exception mentioned above particularly when the date of birth as recorded in the service record is supported by the High School Certificate which has not been challenged so long.
5. Mr. Ravi Kant relied on the decision in the case In AIR 1996 SC 2665. in support of his contention that the Managing Committee has the jurisdiction or authority to correct the date of birth. That proposition is not disputed by Mr. Khare. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the said decision does not help Mr. Ravi Kant to support the order impugned in the writ petition except to explain notwithstanding whatever I have observed above with regard to his submission that the Managing Committee is within its right to correct the date of birth if the circumstances so require. Mr. Khare, however, relied on the decision in the case of K.C. Kapoor v. Union of India and others, 1985 UPLBEC 801, wherein this Court in a Division Bench had held that In case of dispute with regard to the date of birth recorded in two different Certificates--one being a High School Certificate and the other being a Matriculation Certificate, it was held that the Matriculation Certificate should prevail upon. Relying on the said ratio in present case also, the dispute is between with regard to records relating to admission and that of the High School Certificate. It is to be given preference and it should prevail upon. The records of admission or otherwise is an internal document of the School but so far as the High School Certificate is concerned. It is a certificate given by the Board which has a sanctity on the basis whereof a person is admitted for higher classes. Such a certificate cannot be lightly ignored unless there are very serious and grave allegations and. sufficient materials to dispute the same.
6. For all the reasons above, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 30th October, 1995 contained in Annexure '14' cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, a writ of certiorori do issue. The petitioner shall be given all the benefits of service till the date of his retirement on the basis of his age recorded in the Service Book, namely, 1st July, 1937. No order as to costs.