Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Shri Sidharth Khare, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri M.M. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. By means of this appeal, the appellant challenges the validity and correctness of impugned judgement dated 23.7.2014 passed in Writ A No. 40927 of 2004, Prayag Narain Dubey v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others, which is a short one and reproduced below :

“The petitioner virtually seeks rectification of his date of birth at the fag end of his career. It is settled law that it cannot be done at that later stage. Firstly the record of the case has been summoned and after due verification it has been found that the date of birth recorded by the petitioner in his service book was the year 1952 and interpolation had been made in the record by writing 58. This finding has been recorded by the Court in its ordersheet dated 10.4.2012 but no amendment has been sought even otherwise the reason stated above the prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed”

3. In the aforesaid judgment a reference has been made to the order dated 10.4.2012. This order pertains to production of original record before the Court and its observation. It reads thus :

“Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted one week’s time to amend his petition.

List thereafter.

Sri M.M.Sahai has produced the record before this Court, which has been shown to the counsel for the petitioner also. From a plain perusal of the record it appears that the date of birth has been changed from 1952 to 1958. Learned Counsel for the petitioner now wants to amend his petition. He prays for and is granted one week’s time to do so.”

4. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had passed Junior High School Certificate Examination in the year 1971 wherein his date of birth was recorded as 25.2.1958. He was initially engaged as labour (Majadur) in U.P. Government Roadways in 1974 and thereafter was promoted as Conductor on 29.7.1983; that the Assistant Regional Manager vide his order dated 29.10.2002 directed that date of birth of the appellant petitioner be treated as 25.2.1952 instead of 25.2.1958 on the basis of medical certificate said to have been submitted by the petitioner to the department at the time of his appointment. The order dated 29.10.2002 reads thus:

^^dk;kZy; lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd

mRrj izns'k jk0l0 ifjogu fuxe] vkSj;kA

i=kad 1244 bZ0vkj@l0{ks0iz0@ vkSjs;k@v0frfFk@2002 fnukad 29-10-02

dk;kZy; vkns'k%&

Jh oh0,u0 nwcs] orZeku es ifjpkyd vkSjs;k fMiks ftudh foHkkx es fu;qfDr etnwj in ij gqbZ FkhA ml le; buds }kjk tUefrfFk dk izek.k i= tks esfMdy vkQhlj }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] ds vk/kkj ij budh lsok iqfLrdk esa tUefrfFk 25-2-1952 vafdr gSA ftldks ckn esa 25-2-1958 fd;k gS tcfd 11 lh es LiV :i ls 25-2-1952 vHkh Hkh vafdr gSA tUefrfFk vafdr gSA tUefrfFk 25-2-1952 ds LFkku ij 25-2-1958 fd;k x;k gSA og lsok fofu;ekoyh ds fu;e 14 ¼1½ ls ¼3½ ds foijhr gS tks vekU; gSA

vr% Jh ih0,u0 nwcs] ifjpkyd] vkSjs;k dh lsok iqfLrdk esa fu;qfDr ds le; vafdr dh x;h tUefrfFk 25-2-1952 dks vfUre :i ls lgh ekuk tkrk gSA rnuqlkj gh dk;Zokgh dh tk;A

g0 vi0

,p0,l0 fo"V

lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd

vkSjs;kA

izfrfyfi%&fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,ao vko’;d dk;Zokgh gsrqA

1- {ks=h; izcU/kd mRrj izns'k ifjogu fuxe bVkokA

2- lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd ¼foRr½ bVkokA

3- lsok iqfLrdk lgk;d@O;fDrxr i=koyh lgk;d vkSj;kA

4- lEcfU/kr ifjpkyd }kjk%& o0ds0iz0 vkSjs;kA

g0 vi0

,p0,l0 fo"V

lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd

vkSjs;kA**

5. The medical certificate regarding date of birth of the appellant issued by the medical officer appended to the writ petition, is reproduced below :

“Office of the Superintendent of District Hospital

Certificate of Fitness for Government Service

I do hereby certify that I have examined Sri Prayag Narain Dubey a Candidate in the Roadways Deptt. and can not discover that he has any disease, Constitutional weakness or bodily infirmity except N