JUDGMENT D.S. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Sri Dhan Prakash. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sarad Sharma, holding brief of Sri H. N. Sharma. the learned counsel of the respondent.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been wrongly retired from service w.e.f. 31st December. 1989 on the basis of his recorded date of birth i.e., 1st January. 1930.
3. According to the petitioner his date of birth is 7th July, 1933. He asserts that 1st January. 1930 was wrongly entered in the new service book, which had to be prepared on account of the loss of the original.
4. Thus, the question for consideration is what is the actual date of birth of the petitioner? Is it 1st January, 1930 or 7th July. 1933?
5. It is not disputed that the petitioner has passed High School Examination and was Issued requisite Certificate. According to him in the certificate his date of birth is recorded as 7th July. 1933. But. the certificate is not available as the same was deposited with the respondent at the time of entry into the service and it was tost by the respondent. This stand of the petitioner does not inspire confidence. Nothing has been shown to the Court which compelled the petitioner to deposit his High School Certificate with the respondent. It is a matter of common knowledge that original certificates are not deposited with the employer. Normally, the original certificates are produced for verification and returned after verification. Usually attested copies of the certificates are submitted for the record of the employer. Even if the story of the petitioner that he had deposited the High School Original Certificate with the respondent and the same was lost is taken to be correct, the petitioner could have obtained duplicate certificate and produced in support of his claim that his date of birth recorded in the certificate was 7th July. 1933. He has not done so. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the certificate was 7th July, 1933.
6. On the other hand, it is not disputed that there is a service book of the petitioner and in the said Service Book, his date of birth is recorded to be 1st January, 1930, !t is also not disputed that service book is duly signed by the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner asserts that at the time of his signing the service book, the column relating to date of birth was left blank and it was filled later on without his knowledge. This story of the petitioner also does not deserve any credence. He is an educated man and expected to sign a document after satisfying himself that the document signed by him was a proper document. In view of the fact that the petitioner signed the document, it has to be presumed that he accepted the contents of the document, including the entry relating to his date of birth also. It cannot be gainsaid that admission is the best proof unless sufficiently and cogently explained otherwise. No such explanation is available.
7. For the reasons stated above, the date of birth of the petitioner is held to be 1st January, 1930, and computed from this date of birth, he was rightly retired on 31st December, 1989. The respondents did not commit any Illegality in retiring the petitioner w.e.f. 31st December, 1989. The petition has no force.
8. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.