Pasayat, J. -- Leave granted.

Request for correcting the date of birth recorded, made a few days before the date of superannuation as per original records, having been accepted by the first appellate Court and confirmed by the impugned judgment of the High Court, this appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. and Chief Medical Officers, Azamgarh and Mau.

The respondent joined service under the State on 6.7.1959. In the service-book her date of birth was recorded to be 31.7.1929. Consequently, she was to retire on 31.7.1987. About three weeks before the date of retirement i.e. on 7.7.1987 she approached the acting Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh claiming her date of birth to be 31.7.1939. The official concerned made the correction in her service-book. On that basis, she claimed that she was not to retire on 31.7.1987. A suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for a declaration that her date of birth is 31.7.1939, but by mistake of an officer/employee of the Department, it was wrongly recorded as 31.7.1929. The suit was essentially for a declaration that her date of birth to be 31.7.1939; on consideration of the materials brought on record. The stand was resisted by the State of Uttar Padesh. Analysing the materials on record, the learned VIIth Additional Munsif, Azamgarh dismissed the suit. But in appeal, the learned VIIth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh allowed the appeal and decreed the suit to the effect that the date of birth of the plaintiff (respondent herein) to be 31.7.1939 and that she was entitled to all service benefits on that basis.

The State and the two officials preferred a second appeal before the Allahabad High Court which declined to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the law relating to change of date of birth is fairly well settled and the first appellate Court as well as the High Court fell in grave error by making the declaration to the effect that the date of birth of the respondent was 31.7.1939. Several materials of unimpeachable character were lost sight of and/or not considered, and erroneous inferences were drawn which no reasonable person would arrive at. Relevant materials were left out of consideration and irrelevant materials weighed with the first appellate Court as well as the High Court for deciding the issue in favour of the respondent. Rule 2 of the D.P. Recruitment of Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 (in short "the Rules") and the U.P. Recruitment of Service (Determination of Date of Birth) (First Amendment) Rules, 1980 (in short "the Amendment Rules") clearly delineate the area of permissible correction, in view of what has been stated in Rule 2. There is no scope for effecting any change, that too just a few days before the date of superannuation. The person who carried out the corrections had no authority in law to do so in the teeth of the rule referred to above.

In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that findings of fact have been recorded relating to the correct date of birth, and on taking into consideration the relevant materials the first appellate Court as well as the High Court rightly and in accordance with law decided the issue in favour of the respondent employee and no interference is called for.

Usually, no interference is called for when findings of fact are recorded by the trial/appellate Courts and the High Court, more so, when the issue is decided in second appeal. But where the Courts below lose sight of statutory provisions or act on irrelevant or inadmissible materials, and ignore relevant materials, interference is not impermissible.

Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as the date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service-book, relating to the individual conc