An employee who fails to produce documentary proof of his date of birth at the time of joining the service and provides no satisfactory explanation for his failure to do so cannot challenge the entry in his service book regarding his date of birth, especially when he has been guilty of delay and laches in filing a writ petition.

1. - The petitioner who is an ex-employee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur (for short `the Board') and now already retired from service of the Board on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.2.1977, has filed this writ petition against the respondent Board on the grounds inter-alia that he was initially appointed in services of the Board as Lineman-II on 30.8.1960 in the category skilled B at Ramganj Mandi, District Kota under the administrative control of Assistant Engineer of the Board at Jaipur viz. respondent No. 4. The said appointment was made against anticipated vacancies and the staffing pattern as per the norms laid down by the Board in its meeting held on 12.10.1960.

2. It has been contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that initially the Board had orally agreed to appoint him as Lineman Grade 1 but since said post was not vacant, he was offered the post of Lineman-II which he willingly accepted. The bone of contention which is arises for consideration of this court between the petitioner and the respondent Board pertains to the incorrect recording of the date of birth in the service book which is mentioned as 25.2.1939 as per the information rendered by the petitioner at the time of joining the services of the respondent board; whereas the petitioner is claiming his date of birth as 29.3.1944. It has further been contended by the petitioner that the date of birth as referred to above was not verified by the respondents up to 1984 and in these circumstances the board had sent a communication to the petitioner on 19.1.1984 to produce documents as relied upon by him for verification of his correct date of birth. In compliance of the said order of the Asstt. Engineer the petitioner got himself examined by the Medical Jurist, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and submitted the relevant documents which were required and which indicated that the petitioner was about 40 years of age as on 23.3.1984. As per the instructions and guidelines which are followed by the respondent hoard in the matter of determining the correct date of birth of an employee who joins the services of the board are the following effect :

3. (i) On the basis of Higher Secondary, Matriculation and/or other School Leaving Certificate.

(ii) If the age cannot be determined by method (i) above, then on the basis of date and time of birth recorded in the Municipal Register.

(iii) If the age cannot be determined by any of the methods (i) & (ii) above, then the case will be referred to the Principal District Medical Officer of the Government of Rajasthan. The physical fitness certificate will also be obtained from the medical Officer in respect of each individual.

4. Perusal of the writ petition as well as the documents in case thereto reveal that the petitioner did not comply with any of the above criteria at the time of joining his service with the respondent board as Lineman-II and rather from the service book of the petitioner which was summoned by this court in order to dispel any doubts for determining the correct date of birth as recorded in column 3 of the said service book, his date of birth has been mentioned as 25.3.1939 and duly verified by the Assistant Engineer Sub Division-II R.S.E.B., Sikar and also duly signed by the petitioner in token of correct entries recorded in the service hook his finger impressions were also obtained in token of correctness of the said particulars mentioned in the service book.

5. In the grounds stated in memo of the writ petition the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the then Chief Engineer of the Board, dated 23.6.1992 Annexures-7A whereby the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in the service book i.e., 25.2.1939 was held to be correct on the grounds that the entire action of the respondent in the facts and circumstances of the case, is un-called for, arbitrary, capricious and unjustified for the reason that the recording of the date of birth in the service record of the peti