# (2011) 2 ILRA 722

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 722
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-06-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34797 of 2011
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/2011-2-ilra-722-41928
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Service Rules 2008-Rule 10-readwith
U.P. Public Service (Relaxation of Age
Limit) Rule 1992-Age relaxation for
direct recruitment on Post of S.I.-age
limit provided minimum 21 years-upper
limit 28 years-argument that for last 7
years
no
vacancy
advertised-hence
entitled for relaxation-selection in every
year can not be claimed as a matter of
right-the provision of Rules 1992 not
applicable for Police Personnel where
specific
Rules
framed-Petitions
misconceived dismissed.

Held: Para 17

In view of the law laid down by the apex
Court as well as this Court in Sanjay
Agarwal (supra) and Dr. Rajeev Ranjan
Mishra (supra) making clear distinction
between
the
Rules
regulating
"Recruitment"
and
those
regulating
"conditions
of
service",
the
Rules
regulating
age
applicable
before
appointment is, therefore not a rule
regulating conditions of service, hence is
beyond the purview and ambit of Rule 28
of 2008 Rules and cannot be relaxed at
all. Besides, as I already said, it is
applicable to a person who has already
been appointed and not one who has yet
to be recruited.
Case law discussed:
2007(6) ADJ 272(DB)=2007(5) ALJ 328(DB);
2000(3) AWC 2367; AIR 2002 SC 2322;
2005(2) AWC 1191=(2004) 3 UPLBEC 2778;
(2005) 3 SCC 618; Sanjay Kumar Pathak Vs.
State of U.P. and others WP No. 65189 of
2006, decided on 25.5.2007; 2008(1) ESC
595(DB); 1992 (3) SCALE 287=(1993) 3 SCC
575

## Text

722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
revision may be done by the Collector
either at his own motion or on an
application made to him in this behalf.

6. The petitioner having made an
application
complaining
about
the
incorrectness of the circle rate, the
Collector is bound to consider and decide
the same.

7. In view of aforesaid facts and
circumstances,
the
writ
petition
is
disposed of with the direction to the
respondent No.2 to consider and decide
the above representation/application of
the petitioner within a period of two
months from the date of presentation of a
certified copy of this order/

8. With aforesaid direction, the
petition stands disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.06.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34797 of 2011

Sunil Kumar Pandey and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri P.S. Baghel
Sri Gautam Baghel

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Police Sub-Inspector (Civil Police)
Service Rules 2008-Rule 10-readwith
U.P. Public Service (Relaxation of Age
Limit) Rule 1992-Age relaxation for
direct recruitment on Post of S.I.-age
limit provided minimum 21 years-upper
limit 28 years-argument that for last 7
years
no
vacancy
advertised-hence
entitled for relaxation-selection in every
year can not be claimed as a matter of
right-the provision of Rules 1992 not
applicable for Police Personnel where
specific
Rules
framed-Petitions
misconceived dismissed.

Held: Para 17

In view of the law laid down by the apex
Court as well as this Court in Sanjay
Agarwal (supra) and Dr. Rajeev Ranjan
Mishra (supra) making clear distinction
between
the
Rules
regulating
"Recruitment"
and
those
regulating
"conditions
of
service",
the
Rules
regulating
age
applicable
before
appointment is, therefore not a rule
regulating conditions of service, hence is
beyond the purview and ambit of Rule 28
of 2008 Rules and cannot be relaxed at
all. Besides, as I already said, it is
applicable to a person who has already
been appointed and not one who has yet
to be recruited.
Case law discussed:
2007(6) ADJ 272(DB)=2007(5) ALJ 328(DB);
2000(3) AWC 2367; AIR 2002 SC 2322;
2005(2) AWC 1191=(2004) 3 UPLBEC 2778;
(2005) 3 SCC 618; Sanjay Kumar Pathak Vs.
State of U.P. and others WP No. 65189 of
2006, decided on 25.5.2007; 2008(1) ESC
595(DB); 1992 (3) SCALE 287=(1993) 3 SCC
575

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. )

1. Heard Sri P.S. Baghel, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel,
for the petitioners and perused the record.

2. The petitioners have sought a writ
of certiorari for quashing the advertisement
dated 19.5.2011 in so far as it provides
upper age limit as 28 years and have also
sought a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to provide relaxation in age to
2 All Sunil Kumar Pandey and others V. State of U.P. and others
723
the candidates born between 1.1.1980 to
1.7.1983 so as to make them eligible to
appear in the selection in question.

3. Admittedly the recruitment in
question is governed by the U.P. Police
Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police )
Services Rules 2008 (hereinafter referred
to as the "2008 Rules") as amended from
time to time. The aforesaid Rules do not
contain any provision conferring power to
the competent authority to relax the Rule
regarding age. Rule 10 of 2008 Rules reads
as under :-

" A candidate for direct recruitment
must have attained the age of 21 years and
must not have attained the age of more
than 28 years on the first day of July of
calendar year in which vacancies for
direct recruitment are advertised:

Provided that the upper age limit in
the case of candidate belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
such other categories as may be specified."

4. The learned counsel for the
petitioners contended that for the last 10
years no recruitment on the post of SubInspector has been made , therefore, the
petitioners who were earlier eligible and
entitled to be considered against the
vacancies arising in 2007-08, have become
overage and are entitled for relaxation of
age. He placed reliance upon a decision in
Special Appeal No. 325 of 2008 Smt.
Abha Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and
others decided on 2.4.2008 in which it
was observed that selection process shall
be initiated by the respondents within 3
months.

5. On the other hand, it is contended
by the learned counsel for the respondents
that selection process has been initiated in
accordance with law. Since under the
advertisement the petitioners were not
eligible, hence can not appear in the
selection process.

6. In my view, the submission
advanced on behalf of the petitioners lacks
substance.

7. It proceeds on the assumption that
petitioners have a right to claim initiation
of selection process as soon as the
vacancies occurred in 2007 or 2008, and
when they were otherwise eligible and
qualified for the post on which the
vacancies had occurred.

8. The question whether a person is
entitled for such right as also the relaxation
in age came up for consideration before a
Division Bench in the case of Sanjay
Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and others
2007(6) ADJ 272 (DB)=2007(5) ALJ
328(DB). In paragraphs 30, 32, 41 and 42
of the said judgment this Court held as
under:

"(30)
...................
The
right
of
consideration
commences
from
the
advertisement as admitted and thus it
would also adhere to various conditions of
the advertisement. It cannot be said that
the right of consideration flowing from
advertisement
is
distinct
from
and
severable from the various conditions of
eligibility prescribed in the advertisement.
A candidate would have a right of
consideration in accordance with the
advertisement
if
he
fulfils
various
qualifications and eligibility prescribed
thereunder and not otherwise. It is not
open to a candidate to suggest that he is
entitled for benefit of the advertisement
partly and the other part which is against
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
him is to be ignored. An advertisement
which is a public offer to all persons
concerned will have to be taken as a whole
and not in part. If a candidate fulfils all the
qualifications
prescribed
in
the
advertisement only then he can be said to
have a right of consideration and not
otherwise. Since the basic premise of the
argument in our view does not stand, the
entire building raised thereon also cannot
stand.

(32) .......................The submission is
that the Rule makes it obligatory to the
Court to make recruitment at least once in
every three years and in case it fails to do
so, it is bound to compensate those
candidates who have become overage or
otherwise become ineligible due to nonholding of recruitment during a particular
period. Elaborating the submission, it is
also contended that the petitioners are
entitled for relaxation in the matter of age
to the extent the recruitment could not be
held for a period of more than three years
and to that extent relaxation needs to be
given to such candidates.

(41) Further a person if fulfils
requisite
educational
and
other
qualifications
does
not
possess
a
fundamental
or
legal
right
to
be
considered for appointment against any
post or vacancy as soon as it is available
irrespective of whether the employer has
decided to fill in the vacancy or not. The
right of consideration does not emanate or
flow from existence of the vacancy but
commences only when the employer
decides to fill in the vacancy and the
process of recruitment commences when
the notification or advertisement of the
vacancy is issued. So long as the vacancy
is not made available for recruitment, no
person can claim that he has a right of
consideration since the vacancy exists and
therefore,
he
must
be
considered...................
We
are
of
considered
view
that
the
right
of
consideration would come in picture only
when the vacancy is put for recruitment,
i.e., when the advertisement is published.
That being so, the right of consideration
commences when the recruitment process
starts. The incumbent would obviously
have right of consideration in accordance
with the provisions as they are applicable
when the advertisement is made and in
accordance with conditions provided in the
advertisement read with relevant rules. It
is also obvious that if there is any
inconsistency between the advertisement
and Rules, the statutory rules shall prevail.
In Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra), the Apex
Court has clearly held that recruitment to
the service could only be made in
accordance with the Rules and not
otherwise.

(42) Recently a similar claim for
relaxation in respect to the period when no
recruitment was held, pertaining to
recruitment of U.P. Judicial Services came
up for consideration before a Full Bench
of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Pathak Vs.
State of U.P. and others (writ petition no.
65189 of 2006) decided on 25.5.2007, and
it held that unless permitted by the Rules
no relaxation can be claimed. The Court
also observed as under:

"Nobody can claim as a matter of
right that recruitment on any post should
be made every year."

9. Furthermore, in absence of any
provision empowering the respondents to
grant relaxation in age in the selection
governed by the statutory Rules, no such
mandamus can be issued. The learned
2 All Sunil Kumar Pandey and others V. State of U.P. and others
725
counsel for the petitioners also has not
been able to place any decision or
provision before this Court which provides
such relaxation. He however, refers to U.P.
Public Service (Relaxation of Age Limit)
Rules, 1992 framed under Article 309
(Proviso) of the Constitution of India,
authorizing the State Government to relax
any provision with regard to maximum age
limit. In my view, the aforesaid Rules
would not apply to recruitment in U.P.
Police Force which is governed by the
Police Act, 1861 and the Rules framed
thereunder i.e. under Section 46 (2).

10. A Division Bench of this Court in
Subhash Chandra Sharma vs State of
U.P. and others 2000(3) AWC 2367
while considering applicability of U.P.
Recruitment to Service (Age Limit) Rules,
1972 to U.P. Police Force, in paragraphs
no. 16, 17 and 18 held as under:

"16. Thus, there can be no doubt that
if the appropriate Legislature has enacted
a law regulating the recruitment and
conditions of service, the power of the
Governor is totally displaced, and he
cannot make any Rule under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution. In State of
U. P. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya. AIR 1961
SC 751. a decision rendered by a
Constitution Bench, the Police Act and the
U. P. Police Regulations came up for
consideration and it was held as follows in
paragraph 12 of the Reports :

The result is that the Police Act and
the Police Regulations made in exercise of
power conferred on the Government under
that Act. which were preserved under
Section 243 of the Government of India
Act. 1935, continue to be in force after the
Constitution so far as they are consistent
with the provisions of the Constitution."

In paragraph 23. it was observed that
the Police Act and the Rules made
thereunder constitute a self-contained
Code providing for appointment of the
police
officers
and
prescribing
the
procedure for their removal. In Nanak
Chand v. State of U. P., 1971 ALJ 724, a
Full Bench of our Court held as follows :

"It is not correct to say that no
temporary posts can be created in the
Police Force, Section 2 of the Police Act is
certainly wide enough to permit such posts
to be created, and it appears that it is now
the general Rule in U. P. for all new
recruits to be employed at first in a
temporary capacity."

17. In Nurul Hasan v. Senior
Superintendent of Police. 1985 UPLBEC
1329. a Division Bench of this Court,
speaking through Hon'ble S. Saghir
Ahmad, J. (as his lordship then was), held
as follows :

"It has already been specified above
that in the exercise of the powers conferred
by the Police Act the State Government has
made Police Regulations by which the
service conditions of the subordinate
police officers have been regulated. There
are, therefore, special statutory provisions
which regulate the service conditions of
police personnel. They would, therefore, be
not governed by the C.C.A. Rules as they
clearly fall within Explanation (a) of Rule
3 of the said Rules."

18. Similar view has been taken by
two other Division Benches of our Court in
State of U. P. v. Mohd. Ibrahim. AIR 1959.
All 223. and Mukhtar Singh v. State of U.
P., AIR 1959 All 569. Section 2 of the
Police Act empowers the State Government
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
to issue orders providing for the manner in
which the police force may be constituted.
The constitution of a force necessarily
implies the act of making appointment to
various categories of posts in the police
force. Provision in this regard have been
made in the U. P. Police Regulations or in
the Government orders issued from time to
time on the subject relating to recruitment.
Therefore, the field relating to recruitment
of subordinate ranks of the police force is
already covered by the provisions of the
Police Act. Consequently, a Rule made by
the Governor in exercise of power
conferred by proviso to Article 309, like
the 1972 Rules, which is very general in
terms and does not make any reference to
the police force, can have no application to
the matter governing the upper age-limit of
the candidates seeking recruitment to the
posts of constables or sub-Inspectors of
police."

11. Similarly the Apex Court in
Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others Vs.
Shakuntala Shukla and others AIR 2002
SC 2322 held that U.P. Government
Service (Criteria for Recruitment by
Promotion) Rules 1994 framed under
Article 309 (Proviso) of the Constitution is
inapplicable to the members of U.P. Police
Force and held that Police Act 1861 and
the provisions made thereunder shall hold
the field. The view expressed by the
Division Bench in Subhash Chandra
(supra) has been affirmed by a Full Bench
of this Court in Vijay Singh And others
Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh and
others 2005 (2) AWC 1191= (2004) 3
UPLBEC 2778 following the dictum laid
down in Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs.
Shakuntala Shukla (Supra).

12. The next submission is that the
recruitment ought to have been made every
year and if the recruitment is not made in a
particular year, the recruiting body is
bound to give relaxation to the candidates
who have become overage due nonrecruitment against the vacancies available
in the year when no recruitment was made.
In support of this submission, Sri Baghel
however, could not show any provision
under 2008 Rules whereunder the present
recruitment in question is being made
which may require holding of recruitment
every year. In the absence of any such
provision, the recruitment made otherwise
in accordance with rules cannot be
interfered.

13. In Food Corporation of India
Vs. Bhanu Lodh (2005) 3 SCC 618 the
Apex Court has held that rigor of statutory
provisions cannot be relaxed by giving a
total go-bye to the statutes. In Malik
Mazhar Sultan Vs. U.P.P.S.C. JT 2006
(4) SC 531 the Apex Court has said that
the recruitment to the service can only be
made in accordance with rules and not
otherwise.

14. This aspect has also been
considered by a Full Bench judgment of
this Court in Sanjay Kumar Pathak Vs.
State of U.P. and others WP No. 65189
of 2006, decided on 25.5.2007, by a
Division Bench of this Court (of which I
was also a member) in Dr. Rajeev Ranjan
Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others 2008(1) ESC 595 (DB) and by a
Single Judge (myself) in Vijay Kumar
Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others
2008(1) ADJ 345.

15. A faint attempt was made to
contend that power of relaxation is
contained in Rule 28 of 2008 Rules.
However, the submission is worth rejection
outright. A Bare perusal of Rule 28 shows
2 All Sunil Kumar Pandey and others V. State of U.P. and others
727
that it confers power upon the State
Government to relax the requirement of
any rule regulating the "conditions of
service" of person appointed to the service
if it is satisfied that such provision causes
undue hardship in any particular case.
Without looking into anything further
suffice it to say that Rule 28 refers to rules
regulating "conditions of service" and not
the rules relating to 'recruitment'. Further it
is also made clear that it is applicable to a
person who is appointed to service
meaning thereby after appointment if such
provision causes undue hardship, only then
Rule 28 would be attracted. The distinction
between Rules pertaining to 'Recruitment'
and "conditions of service" is well
established.

16. In Syed Khalid Rizvi And
Ors.Union Of India and 1992 (3)
SCALE
287=(1993)
3
SCC
575,
considering the distinction between Rules
pertaining to Recruitment and conditions
of service the Apex Court in paragraphs
30, 31 and 33 held as under:

"30. The next question is whether the
seniority is a condition of service or a part
of rules of recruitment? In State of M.P.
and Ors. v. Shardul Singh, this Court held
that conditions of service means all those
conditions which regulate the holding of a
post by a person right from the time of his
appointment (emphasis Supplied) to his
retirement and even beyond, in matters like
pensions etc. In I.N. Subba Reddy v.
Andhra University and Ors. , the same
view was reiterated. In Mohd. Shujat Ali
and Ors. etc. v. Union of India and Ors.
etc. , Constitution Bench held that the rule
which confers a right to actual promotion
or a right to be considered for promotion
is a rule prescribing a condition of the
service. In Mohd. Bhakar v. Krishna Reddy
1970 S.L.R. 768, another Constitution
Bench held that any rule which affects the
promotion of a person relates to his
condition of service. In State of Mysore v.
G.B. Purohit C.A. No. 2281 of 1965 dt.
25.1.1967, this Court held that a rule
which merely effects chances of promotion
cannot be regarded as varying a condition
of service. Chances of promotion are not
conditions of service. The same view was
reiterated in another Constitution Bench
judgment
in
Ramchandra
Shankar
Deodhar and Ors. v. The State of
Maharashtra W.P. No. 299 of 1969 dt.
Nov. 12, 1973. No doubt conditions of
service may be classified as salary,
confirmation, promotion, seniority, tenure
or termination of service etc. as held in
State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath , by a
bench of two Judges. But it must be noted
the context in which the law therein was
laid. The question therein was whether
non-prosecution for a grave offence after
expiry of four years is a condition of
service? While negativing the contention
that non-prosecution after expiry of 4
years is not a condition of service, this
Court elaborated the subject and the above
view was taken. The ratio therein does not
have any bearing on the point in issue.
Perhaps the question may bear relevance,
if an employee was initially recruited into
the service according to the Rules and
Promotion was regulated in the same rules
to higher echelons of service. In that arena
promotion may be considered to be a
condition of service. In A.K. Bhatnagar v.
Union of India , this Court held that
seniority in an incidence of service and
where the service rules prescribe the
method of its computation it is squarely
governed by such rules. In their absence
ordinarily the length of service is taken
into account. In that case the direct
recruits were made senior to the recruits
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
by regularisation although the appellants
were appointed earlier in point of time and
uninterruptedly remained in service as
temporary
appointees
alongwith
the
appellant but later on when recruited by
direct recruitment they were held senior to
the promotees." (emphasis supplied)

"31. ....................The eligibility for
recruitment to the Indian Police Service,
thus, is a condition of the recruitment and
not a condition of service. Accordingly we
hold that seniority, though, normally an
incidence to service, Seniority Rules,
Recruitment
Rules
and
Promotion
Regulations form part of the conditions of
recruitment to the Indian Police Service by
promotion, which should be strictly
complied with before becoming eligible for
consideration for promotion and are not
relaxable."

 (emphasis supplied)

"33. Rule 3 of the Residuary Rules
provides the power to relax rules and
regulations in certain cases - Where the
Central Govt. is satisfied that the operation
of - (i) any rule made or deemed to have
been made under the Act, or (ii) any
regulation made under any such rule,
regulating the conditions of service of
persons appointed to an All India Service
"causes undue hardship in any particular
case", it may, by order, dispense with or
relax the requirements of that rule or
regulation, as the case may be, to such an
extent and subject to such exceptions and
conditions as it may consider necessary for
dealing with the case in a "just and
equitable manner". Rule 3 empowers the
Central Govt. to relieve undue hardship
occurred due to unforeseen or unmerited
circumstances. The Central Govt. must be
satisfied that the operation of the rule or
regulation brought about undue hardship
to an officer. The condition precedent,
therefore, is that there should be an
appointment to the service in accordance
with rules and by operation of the rule,
undue hardship has been caused, that too
in an individual case, the Central Govt. on
its satisfaction of those conditions, have
been empowered to relieve such undue
hardship by exercising the power to relax
the condition. It is already held that
conditions of recruitment and conditions of
service are distinct and the latter is
preceded by an appointment according to
Rules. The former cannot be relaxed. The
latter too must be in writing that too with
the consultation of U.P.S.C. In Mahapatra
and Khanna cases this Court held that
approval by the Central Govt. and
U.P.S.C.
are
mandatory.
In
A.K.
Cnaudhary's case it was held that
requirement of Rule 3(3)(b) of Seniority
Rules is mandatory. In Amrik Singh's case
an express order in writing under Rule 3 of
Residuary rule is mandatory. In this case
neither any representation to relax the
rules was made nor any order in writing in
this behalf was expressly passed by the
Central Govt. The fiction of deeming
relaxation would emasculate the operation
of the Rules and Regulations and be
fraught with grave imbalances and chain
reaction. It is, therefore, difficult to accept
the contention that there would be deemed
relaxation of the Rules and Regulations."

17. In view of the law laid down by
the apex Court as well as this Court in
Sanjay Agarwal (supra) and Dr. Rajeev
Ranjan Mishra (supra) making clear
distinction between the Rules regulating
"Recruitment"
and
those
regulating
"conditions
of
service",
the
Rules
regulating
age
applicable
before
appointment is, therefore not a rule
regulating conditions of service, hence is
beyond the purview and ambit of Rule 28
2 All Hari Ram Gupta V. State of U.P. and others
729
of 2008 Rules and cannot be relaxed at all.
Besides, as I already said, it is applicable to
a person who has already been appointed
and not one who has yet to be recruited.

18. In view of above discussions, the
writ petition lacks merit.

19. Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39406 of 2007

Hari Ram Gupta

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.B. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.
Recruitment
of
Service
Determination of Date of Birth Rules
1974-Rule-2-Date
of
Birth-Petitioner
already passed High School examinationbefore joining of Service-in Service Book
date of birth recorded-neither on basis of
High School Certificate nor on basis of
Medical
Certificate-after
getting
retirement
notice-application
of
correction rejected on ground of delayHeld-authorities
himself
committed
great illegality by ignoring the date of
birth mentioned in Service Record-order
quashed but towards payment of salary
lump sum amount of Rs. 5000/-given

Held: Para 25 and 30

Therefore I am of the opinion that the
respondents were duty bound to correct
the date of birth as mentioned in the
High School certificate, which has not
been disputed by the respondents, only
on intimation of the petitioner.

However the respondents are directed to
pay Rs. 50,000/- lump sum and grant the
post retiral benefits treating him in
service on the basis of date of birth
recorded in High School certificate i.e.
1.1.1949. The respondents are also
directed to release the post retiral dues
and other benefits within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order of this Court.

Case law discussed:
2006 (1) ESC 80 (All); 1993 (2) SCC 162; 2006
(6) SCC 537; AIR 2010 SC 2295; 2008 ESC (4)
2251

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.)

1. Through this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of
certiorari
quashing
the
order
dated
16.8.2007 passed by Executive Engineer,
Construction Revision, Public Works
Department,
District
Maharajganj
(respondent no. 3) by which the petitioner's
application for correction of date of birth in
the service book has been rejected on the
ground that the date of birth recorded in
the service book at the time of entry in the
service shall be deemed to be correct. This
was done on the basis of legal advice
taking note of the provisions contained in
(U.P.
Recruitment
of
Services
Determination of Date of Birth Rules)
1974 (herein after referred to as Rules
1974).

2. The facts giving rise to this case
are that the petitioner was appointed as a
roller driver on 1.3.1980 and was
confirmed on the said post on 30.8.1982.
While entering into the service his date of
birth in the service book was recorded as
20.8.1947. Taking note of that the