Jan - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012(b) Where a Government servant hasnot passed any such examination asaforesaid or has passed such examinationafter joining the service, the date of birthor the age recorded in his service book atthe time of his entry into the Governmentservice shall be deemed to be hiscorrect date of birth or age, as the casemay be, for all purposes in relation tohis service, including eligibility forpromotion,superannuation,premature retirement or retirementbenefits and,(c ) No application or representationshall be entertained for correction ofsuch date or age in any circumstanceswhatsoever.8. The aforesaid rules provide thatfor determination of the date of birth ifan employee entered into the governmentservice after passing high schoolexamination then the date of birth asrecorded in the High School certificateshall be deemed to be correct and if hehas entered into the service beforepassing the High School examinationthen the date of birth recorded in theservice book shall be deemed to becorrect. The deeming provisions is alegal friction provided under theaforesaid rules, meaning thereby even ifthe same is not the actual one even thenin view of legal friction that will bedeemed to be correct.9. Here it is not in dispute that thepetitioner has entered into service afterpassing High School, therefore, for thepurpose of determination of date of birth,the date of birth as recorded in theservice book shall be treated to becorrect for all purposes unless that iscancelled or annulled either by the Boardor by the competent court.10. Here in the present case on acomplaint of private individual the HighSchool certificate which is the sheetanchor of the petitioner's case has beenignored on the ground that the petitionerhas earlier passed High SchoolExamination and he has played fraud notonly on the department but also on theBoard.11. Suffice it to say, where anyaction is taken on the basis of fraud thenin that eventuality mere allegations offraud is not sufficient for taking actionagainst a person unless it is pleaded andproved. I am of the view that once theauthorities have come to the conclusionthat the petitioner has second timeappeared in the High SchoolExamination with a view to get reducehis date of birth and passed High Schoolin the year 2005 then certainly it was acase of fraud but for that it was to besomewhere pleaded and proved either byway of lodging criminal proceeding orthrough disciplinary proceeding underthe Rules governing the petitionerservice. It is not the case of respondentthat High School certificate issued to thepetitioner has either been cancelled orannulled by the Board or any othercompetent court. Therefore, I am of theview that as long as High Schoolcertificate issued in the year 2005 isthere, the respondents were not justifiedto cancel the selection of the petitioneron the assumption that he has passedHigh School in the year 1992,particularly in the circumstances wherethe petitioner has come with specificcase as stated in paragraph 2 of thesupplementary rejoinder affidavit that