ORDER

This petition is filed being aggrieved of the decision of the authorities rejecting the petitioner's representation for correction of his date of birth in terms of order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the High Court in W.P.No. 7745 of 2016 (s) .

Petitioner's contention is that he was appointed as a daily rated employee in the respondent Public Works Department. His actual date of birth is 15.12.1967 but it is wrongly mentioned as 05.11.1961 in the service record. The respondent department on 11.07.2014 had issued the list of daily rated employees working in the department and in this list name of the petitioner is at Sl. No. 601.

The case of the petitioner is that his date of birth has been wrongly mentioned as 05.11.1961 in place of 15.12.1967.

I have perused the order of the High Court which only directs to consider the representation and decide the same without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

When the decision of the authorities is tested in this behalf, then it is evident that the petitioner while furnishing his reply admitted that he has lost all the original papers as his native house is a temporary structure and it is further mentioned that in Adhar Card etc. his date of birth is mentioned as 1969.

Fact of the matter is that Adhar Card is not a proof of date of birth. The proof of date of birth in terms of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 petitioner was required to produce copy of Dakhil Kharij Register from the School which was first attended by him or a high school mark-sheet showing his date of birth but none of these documents could be produced by the petitioner, therefore, making an allegation that on blank service book his signature was obtained by the then SDO is not a sufficient ground and no cogent documentary evidence is produce to prove the date of birth of the petitioner to be wrongly mentioned in the service book.

Accordingly, petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE AR