JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 29.1.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition being Special Civil Application no. 14885/19, the appellant-original petitioner has preferred this intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:-

That the appellant was appointed as daily wager by the Forest Department in the year 1984. Record indicates that the benefit of Government Resolution dated 15.9.2014 were extended to the appellant in the year 2014 and at that juncture, the appellant was asked by the respondent no. 2 to furnish the proof of date of birth. It appears from the record that in absence of any record of the date of birth, the appellant approached the jurisdictional Civil Court under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the said application was allowed and the learned Magistrate directed the authority to register the date of birth as 3.6.1969 and accordingly, the birth was recorded in the record of Village Mitha and birth certificate accordingly came to be issued. Record indicates that when the benefit of Government Resolution dated 15.9.2014 was accorded to the appellant, the appellant submitted his Aadhar Card and election card which shows that his date of birth was 1.1.1961. As the birth certificate recording the date of birth of the appellant as 3.6.1969 was not accepted by the authorities, the present Writ Petition came to be filed by the appellant that too on the eve of his retirement. It was contended by the appellant that he joined services as a daily wager at the age of 15 years and the date of birth registered in the record pursuant to the order passed by the competent Civil Court is conclusive proof. The said fact was denied by the respondent authorities and opposed on the ground that as per the Aadhar Card and the election card of the appellant, his real date of birth is 1.1.1961 and that only in order to extend the service tenure on the eve of retirement, such order is put in service. The learned Single Judge, after considering the material on record, was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition and being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

3. Heard Mr. J.G. Vaghela, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned AGP for the State Government authorities on advance copy.

4. Mr. Vaghela, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the order of Civil Court is disregarded by the authorities and even though the date of birth of the appellant is 3.6.1969, he has been made to retire treating his birth date as 1.1.1961. It was further contended that Aadhar Card and election card are not authentic in nature and the birth date as recorded under the provisions of the Act is conclusive proof of the date of birth. Mr. Vaghela therefore contended that the authorities have wrongly made the appellant to retire even though he has not reached the age of superannuation. Mr. Vaghela contended that the boy aged 15 years can join the services of the Government as a daily wager and therefore, it cannot be inferred that the date of birth recorded in the register as 3.6.1969 is incorrect. Mr. Vaghela however submits that though the appellant has joined the services in the year 1984, he will reach the age of superannuation based upon the date of birth being 3.6.1969 and not 1.1.1961. Reiterating the contentions raised in the petition, it was also contended by the learned advocate for the appellant that finding of fact recorded by the learned Registrar based on the evidence led in the Court cannot be questioned or disturbed again without examining the evidence. Mr. Vaghela also contended that it is not true that at the last moment, the change that the appellant has given for change of birth date but in reality, as per the rules of the Government, it can be changed within a period of 5 years from when it i