OM PRAKASH MISRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was Head Constable, in Armed Police and was posted at Police Training Centre, Sitapur has by means of the petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, challenged his retirement from service. It is contended by him that at the time of entry into service in 1951 he had given out his age as 22 years add, therefore, his year of birth would be 1929 and not 1926. It has been stated by the opposite parties in the counter affidavit that the petitioner who was enrolled on 21 -9 -51 had, no doubt, stated that he was 22 years of age but he was reported by the Civil Surgeon to be a man of 25 years at the time of enlistment and, therefore, his date of birth was mentioned as 21 -9 -26 in the character roll on which petitioner's left thumb impression as also his natures were taken. He was, therefore, rightly retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 30 -9.84.

(2.) BY an order dated 6 -8 -84 the standing Counsel was directed to produce the service record before the court. It has been produced before us and we have looked into it. The relevant entries with regard to the petitioner's age on the first page of the service book are as under:

(3.) U .P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, as amended in 1980, provides as under: