The date of birth recorded in the service book governs the date of superannuation, and correction of date of birth after a long delay is not permitted.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri H. N. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief standing counsel along with Sri Raj Kumar learned Standing counsel. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the impugned order dated 28th/29th of March, 1990 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1. Further prayer has been made for commanding the respondents not to superannuate the petitioner from the post of Head master of before 30th June, 1991 and to pay him salary and other emoluments upto 30th June, 1991.

( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, mohaila Chaudhriana, Saharanpur in the year 1953 and later on was promoted as Head Master in the same school on 1. 1. 1963. According to the petitioner his date of birth is 1. 7. 1930 and after completing sixty years of age petitioner was retired by the order dated 1. 7. 1990, which was challenged by way of this writ petition. This court by the order dated 30. 5. 1990 indicated that until further orders of this Court, operation of the order dated 28/29. 3. 90 is stayed. According to the petitioner passing order of superannuation w. e. f. 30th June, 1991 is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution as he was to attend 60 years on 31st July, 1990, therefore, he will continue upto 30th June, 1991 that is till the completing of the next academic session in view of the Rule 29 of the U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1931, which reads as below

"rule 29-Age of Superannuation: - Every teacher shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years: provided that a teacher Who retires during an academic session (July 1 to June 30) shall continue to work till the end of the academic sessions that is, June 30 and such period of service will be deemed as extended period of employment. "

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the Standing counsel keeping in view the date of birth entered into in the service book as 1. 7. 30 the petitioner had completed 60 years on 30th June, 1990, therefore, he was rightly retired w. e. f. 30th June, 1990 and the benefit of Rule 29 mentioned as above cannot be given to the petitioner and by retiring a person after completing the age of superannuation could never be said to be violating provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution According to the respondents the petitioner has no right to continue in service as the date of birth entered into the service book was duly verified by the competent authority and is taken correct date of birth of the petitioner. According to the respondents the impugned order is not to be interfered with.

( 4 ) IN ( (2003) 1 UPLBEC-280 Bimlesh Sharma v. Electricity Board, Office of Chief Engineer. U. P. Rajya Vidyut Parishad. Moradabad and Ors. where date of birth entered in the service book was to be changed by the wife of the deceased employee when the husband of the writ petitioner had died after retirement by disputing the change of date of birth. This court has held disputed question of fact cannot be investigated in the writ petition and the date of birth once entered in the service book of the petitioner under U. P. Recruitment to service (Determination of Date of birth) Rules, 1974, was treated to be correct supported by the relevant documents and supporting entries in the service book and the change of the date of birth disputing the same on the basis of fitness certificate were not treated to be relevant proof of age and such controversy and disputed question of fact could not be resolved by investigating the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the parties concerned in the writ proceedings.

( 5 ) IN the case of Adhishashi Abhiyanta, Electricity Board, Rihand and Hydel Civil Div. U. P. State Electricity Board, Allahabad and Anr. v. Shitla Prasad and Anr. , Special Appeal No. 383 of 1989, decided on 17. 9. 1993, a Division Bench of this Cour