JUDGMENT :

Dev Darshan Sud, J. - This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging Annexure P-9 which is a communication addressed by the Special Secretary to the Chief Engineer/Transmission System, BBMB, (Bhakra Beas Management Board) Chandigarh stating that the case of the petitioner with respect to his date of birth has been examined; the explanation furnished by the petitioner herein that his date of birth is 20.1.1958, according to the School Leaving Certificate and not 20.1.1954, on the basis of which, he joined the service with the Beas Construction Board (BCB for short) cannot be accepted.

2. It is undisputed before me that the petitioner joined service with Beas Construction Board, as a T Mate on 1.6.1973. It is also undisputed before me that thereafter he joined service with BBMB. However, what is in dispute is his date of birth. According to the respondents , his date of birth, as disclosed by him at the time of his initial point of entry in the service with BCB, is 20.1.1954 and the same date of birth has been recorded in the trade certificate which the petitioner obtained from the Rural Industrial Training Institute, Bilaspur on 30th December, 1969 submitted by him to the BCB as proof of his qualification and date of birth. Such date has been recorded on the obverse of this certificate certifying his period of training from July 1968 to June, 1970 and detailing his marks. The certificate on record of the service book of the petitioner is attested by the Sub Divisional Officer, TC Sub Division, BCB, (PW), Bilaspur. At the time of his entry in service with BCB, he disclosed his date of birth to be 20.1.1954, which was entered in the service book and which particulars were signed by the petitioner acknowledging and accepting the authenticity of the entries made including his date of birth.

3. The petitioner claims 20.1.1958 to be his date of birth on the ground that according to his school leaving certificate Annexure P-2 issued on 7.10.1972 his date of birth has been certified as 20.1.1958. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relies upon Annexure P-10 which is the Parivar Register maintained by Gram Panchayat Bamta of village Nihal in District Bilaspur as 20. 1.1958. The form filled in by the petitioner at the time of his entry in service with BBMB, his date of birth has been entered as 20.1.1958 and it has been accepted by the respondents. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that his elder sister Leela Wati who is working as Principle in Government School, Basantpur was born on 13.12.1954 and in these circumstances, he being younger to her, could not have been born on 20.1.1954.

4. Learned counsel submits that his explanation (Annexure R-16) letter dated 19.3. 2011 clearly states this fact. I t is further submitted that his father had already expired in the year 2000 and his mother had died when he was 3-4 years old, whereafter, his father remarried. He was taken away by his Bua (paternal aunt) who brought him up and there was no communication/contact with his father. His recruitment in the Beas Construction Board was no t on the basis of any actual verification of his date of birth but the fact that recruitment was made on the assumption of age of an incumbent on his physical appearance.

5. Learned Senior counsel, Shri Naresh Kumar Sood appearing for the respondents submits that a detailed inquiry has been conducted by the respondents and at every step the petitioner has given a chance of explaining the facts and an opportunity to present his case. He submits that on verification it was found that the stand adopted by the petitioner was incorrect and incompatible with the record . There could be no better proof that the date of birth of the petitioner was 20.1.1954 than the fact that this date of birth was voluntarily submitted and authenticated by him in the service record/particulars with the BCB where he disclosed this date and signed at the foot of the service particulars without d