WA 213/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.SAIKIA (Amitava Roy, J) The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is the judgment an d order dated 7.3.2011 rendered in WP(C) 5476/2009 dismissing the same. Thereby the appellant/ writ petitioner’s assailment of the order dated 30.9.2009 of the Executive Engineer, North Lakhimpur Electrical Division, UAEDCL, N. Lakhimpur re leasing him from the respondent Board with effect from 30.9.2009 on superannuati on had been rejected. We have heard Mr PP Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant/ writ peti tioner assisted by Mr R Sarma, Advocate and Mr M Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Electricity Board (also referred to as ’the Board’) for the respond ents. The pleaded case of the appellant/ writ petitioner in short is that he h ad been appointed with the Board as a Muster Roll worker on 4.8.1969 after compl eting a course with the Industrial Training Institute, Jorhat and his services w ere regularized as Regular Jugali on 1.3.1971. While in service, he appeared in the HSLC Examination of the State in the year 1985 from Panigaon Higher Secondar y School, Lakhimpur and in the admit card that was issued for the purpose his da te of birth was recorded as 30.9.1952. The same date of birth was also reckonabl e from the certificate dated 8.8.69 issued by the Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Jorhat. According to the appellant/ writ petitioner, he was thereaft er appointed as Welder Grade-II with the Board vide the order dated 12.3.1976 is sued under Memo No. NLED/Estt-2/Pt-II/76/8333. He has asserted that in his servi ce book with the Board as well his date of birth was recorded as 30.9.1952. In t he above premise, he was surprised to receive the letter dated 10.9.2009 issued under Memo No. EE/NLED/NL/PF-PN/PF-74/09/534 by the Executive Engineer, North La khimpur Electrical Division, UAEDC informing him that he was going to attain the age of superannuation on 30.9.2009 as per the records with the Board. By a sepa rate letter of the same date, the Senior Manager, North Lakhimpur Electrical Div ision, UAEDCL, North Lakhimpur required him to submit the school leaving certifi cate of 1974 as proof of his age. It was thereafter that on 30.9.2009, the impug ned communication as above was issued. Being aggrieved, the appellant/ writ petitioner submitted a representati on on 20.10.2009 with the Personal Manager, UAEDCL, Guwahati insisting inter ali a that as the date of birth recorded in his service book was 30.9.1952 he was no t due for superannuation on 30.9.2009 as conveyed to him by the letter dated 10. 9.2009/ 30.9.2009. As his plea remained unheeded, he approached this Court with the aforementioned writ petition. In their affidavit-in-opposition the respondents while admitting that the appell ant/ writ petitioner had been initially inducted as a Muster Roll worker on 4.8. 1969 and that he was eventually promoted as Welder-II on 12.3.1976, denied that the date of birth in his service record was entered as 30.9.1952. They maintain ed in categorical terms that at the time of his entry in service his date of bir th was recorded in the service book as 30.9.1949 on the basis of a school leavi ng certificate produced by him before the authority concerned. They contended th at this document i.e. the school leaving certificate later became untraceable an d instead an admit card of 1985 to the effect that he had appeared in the HSLC E xamination of the State in the same year was detected. According to them, the or iginal date of birth as 30.9.1949 was also found to be altered in his service bo ok which they alleged was an yield of manipulations. The respondents, therefore, insisted that in absence of any valid proof of the appellant/ writ petitioner’s date of birth to be 30.9.1952, the impugned action was legally sustainable. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parti es and on a consideration of the materials on record, did not sustain the impugn ment in the writ petition and rejected the same. Being aggrieved, the present ap peal has been laid. Mr Baruah has argued principally with reference to the certificate issue d by the Industrial Training Institute, Jorhat that as the date of birth of the appellant/ writ petitioner discernible therefrom is 30.9.1952, the impugned orde r of superannuation with effect from 30.9.2009 is per se invalid. The certificat e having been issued obviously before his entry in service, no other date of bir th could have been provided by the appellant/ writ petitioner, he urged. As the date of birth of the appellant/ writ petitioner as 30.9.1952 stands affirmed fro m the admit card of the HSLC Examination of 1985, the learned Single Judge erred in law and on facts in leaving out of consideration the same and, thus, the imp ugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with. Mr Nath, in reply, has contended that the date of birth of the appellant / writ petitioner as would be apparent from his service book was recorded as 30. 9.1949 on the basis of a school leaving certificate produced by him at the time of his entry in service. As overwriting of the same to make it 30.9.1952 is ap parent on a visual estimation simpliciter in absence of any overwhelming evidenc e to the contrary, the same is patently a work of manipulation, he urged. As the admit card of 1985 could not have been, by any means whatsoever, produced at th e time of his entry in service, the service book having been opened on 8.2.1974, reliance thereon is wholly misplaced. As the learned Single Judge on a meticulo us scrutiny of all relevant aspects has rejected the challenge to the order of s uperannuation of the appellant/ writ petitioner, no interference in the appeal i s warranted, he contended. We have traversed the pleadings of the parties and have also extended ou r consideration to the arguments made. There is no wrangle at the Bar that the service book of the appellant/ writ petitioner was opened with the Board on 8.2 .1974. Noticeably, the writ petition is silent as to the document produced by hi m at the time of his entry in service and on the basis of which the date of birt h was recorded in his service book. This is in contradistinction to the categor ical stand of the respondents that it was so drawn from the school leaving certi ficate produced by him at that point of time. It is true that at that point of t ime i.e. in 1974 the certificate issued by the Industrial Training Institute, Jo rhat on 8.8.1969 disclosing his age to be 17 years 10 months was in existence, b ut in absence of any pleaded stand of the appellant/ writ petitioner that the sa id document had been relied upon by him to record his date of birth, at this di stant point of time and in the face of the specific stand of the respondents as above, this document, according to us, is not of any decisive significance. Mr B aruah when confronted by us has led us to the school leaving certificate issued by the Principal, Panigaon Higher Secondary School, Panigaon on 12.9.2009 to th e effect that according to the admission register, his date of birth was 30.9.19 52. It mentions as well that the appellant/ writ petitioner had left the school on 30.12.1984 and had appeared in the HSLC Examination of 1985. This document ap parently is not a duplicate copy of the original document which, according to th e respondents, had been produced by the appellant/ writ petitioner at the time o f his entry in service and taken note of while recording the date of birth in hi s service book. A cursory scan of the relevant dates in the service book of the appellan t/ writ petitioner makes it vivid that the date 30.9.1952 had been overwritten o n some other entry. Most significantly this alteration (s) is/are not certified by any endorsement of the appropriate authority of the Board. One of the entries in the service book supports the date 30.9.1952 to be based on the school leavi ng certificate of the appellant/ writ petitioner. This in a way is inconsistent with the stand taken in course of the arguments before us that the initial entry was on the basis of the certificate issued by the Industrial Training Institute , Jorhat on 8.8.69. Another significant aspect also cannot escape our attention. If the date of birth of the appellant/ writ petitioner is 30.9.1952, on 4.8.196 9 (petitioner’s date of entry in service) he would have been less than 18 years of age, a proposition difficult to accept having regard to the minimum age of en try in public service. On a totality of the considerations as above as well as the reasons reco rded in the impugned judgment and order in support of the ultimate conclusion, w e are of the unhesitant opinion that no interference as sought for in the appeal is called for. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.