Point of Law : Court or the tribunal must be slow in granting interim relief or continuation in service unless, prima facie, evidence of unimpeachable character is produced.

Order

1. This Special Appeal has been filed by the Appellants being aggrieved of the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in Writ A No. 23919 of 2003 whereby request for correction of date of birth of the petitioner from 03.05.1945 to 01.01.1965 has been allowed to be corrected.

2. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the basis of a finding recorded that certificate of C.M.O., Deoria dated 03.05.1990, is not pertaining to the petitioner and on taking evidence at its own level, as recorded in Para-24 of the impugned order, to the effect that person, identified by his counsel, was judged through appearance and the court reached to a conclusion that he is not a man, who would be above 70 years of age as on date.

3. It is submitted that learned Single Judge, has relied on a High School Certificate, in which, date of birth of the candidate is mentioned as 1st January, 1965, issued in favour of one Ganga Prasad Yadav. Learned Single Judge took Ganga Prasad Yadav to be the person with same identity as Ganga Ram Yadav i.e. the petitioner and relying on the High School Marksheet, besides other factors mentioned above, allowed the writ petition, which is contrary to the provisions of law.

4. It is submitted that Marksheet of High School is in relation to Ganga Prasad whereas petitioner's name is Ganga Ram. In the service book, his name is mentioned as Ganga Ram, so also in the certificate issued by the C.M.O. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on Annexure-4, in which, name of the petitioner is mentioned at serial no. 13 as Ganga Ram Yadav and submits that it is evident that even in the year 1987, applicant was known by the name of, ' Ganga Ram'.

5. Issue of allotment of C.P.F. Number, when cropped up, then also name of the petitioner was mentioned as Ganga Ram, but he started representing himself to be Ganga Ram @ Ganga Prasad, so to take unauthorized advantage of the High School Certificate, which actually does not belong to the present petitioner.

6. It is submitted that there is no documentary evidence to demonstrate that Ganga Ram Yadav and Ganga Prasad Yadav, are one and the same and once name of the petitioner was entered in service book as Ganga Ram Yadav, then without any authentic documentation, it could not have been changed to @ Ganga Prasad Yadav. Drawing attention to the order of retirement dated 14.02.2003, it is pointed out that even in the order of retirement, Annexure-25, name is mentioned as Ganga Ram Yadav and not as Ganga Prasad Yadav.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his turn, supports impugned order and submits that Ganga Ram Yadav and Ganga Prasad Yadav, are one and the same. It is further submitted that there was no occasion for the C.M.O. to determine his age and in fact, there is interpolation in the name of the father in the certificate, issued by the C.M.O. and it is in regard to one Ganga Ram S/o Ramesh where Ramesh has been struck off and has been replaced with Ram Narain.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the available record, certain things could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners. Firstly, in the service book, though, there is whitener used after the words ' eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh', but there is no overwriting or removal of the entry in regard to date of birth, which is categorically mentioned as 03.05.1945. This when seen with the personal mark for identification, then personal mark of identification is mentioned as 'mole on right side of cheeks' and same is corroborated from the report of the C.M.O., Deoria, whereas in the service book of another Ganga Ram, personal mark for identification is mentioned as 'mole below left nostril' and 'a lacerated wound mark', measuring 1½ inch over the ankle of right leg. Therefore, when read in the context of the identification marks, then submission made by learned counsel for petitioner that there is ov