JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. Parties have exchanged affidavits.

2. Admit.

3. Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Chaubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Learned Standing Counsel has been heard on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. This writ petition challenges the order dated 03.10.2022 jointly passed by the Chairman and the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Kairana, District Shamli, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as a Safai Nayak; or at least purporting to do so.

5. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed to the post of a Safai Karmi after his father resigned from the employ of Nagar Palika. The petitioner was appointed vide letter of appointment dated 4.12.1991. He has worked for a long period of time to the satisfaction of his employers and was never subjected to any disciplinary action. It is the petitioner's case that at the time of his appointment, he was required to submit his age and fitness certificates. The petitioner appeared before the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika way back in the year 1991 and produced his Transfer Certificate relating to Class VII from the school that he had last attended. The Executive Officer asked the petitioner to appear before the Chief Medical Officer for the purpose of determination of his age. The Chief Medical Officer, by a Certificate dated 23.12.1991, that is on record as Annexure No.2, opined the petitioner to be aged about 25 years. In the year 2010, there was a complaint about the petitioner's age and he was required to submit an explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.06.2010, wherein he mentioned the facts that had transpired at the time of his appointment. The petitioner submitted an explanation stating therein that he did not play any fraud, but the Chief Executive Officer at the time of his appointment asked him to go to the Chief Medical Officer for a medical examination to estimate his age. The petitioner further said that he would have no objection if his date of birth is determined according to his transfer certificate relating to Class VII. The petitioner's reply dated 18.06.2010 is on record.

6. Acting upon the complaint that was before the Nagar Palika in the year 2010, the Executive Officer sought guidance of the Assistant Director, Local Bodies, who opined by his Memo No.462 dated 20.09.2011 that under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 (for short ‘the Rules of 1974’), whatever age of the employee had been entered in the service-book at the time of his appointment was immutable and could not be changed. No representation or objection to the recorded date of birth can be entertained. After the aforesaid guidance by the Assistant Director Local Bodies, proceedings against the petitioner were dropped. Now, a complaint has been made by one Deepak Kumar Chandra against the petitioner by approaching the Minister in the concerned Department reiterating the complaint about petitioner's date of birth. In this regard, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.09.2022. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause with the specific assertion that the complaint has been made on account of animosity. The petitioner had never concealed his date of birth, but his plea based on the pre-High School date of birth was not accepted by the Nagar Palika. It was also pointed out that on an earlier occasion when the same question arose, after the guidance on the issue by the Assistant Director, Local Bodies, the matter was dropped and the petitioner’s date of birth in his service-book was regarded as one that could not be changed.

7. By the impugned order dated 03.10.2022, jointly signed by the Chairman and the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad, the petitioner's date of birth, on the basis of his Transfer Certificate from Class VII has been considered to be his correct da