EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERSversusBAJRANGI RABIDAS

                     [2013] 16 S.C.R. 895


       EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS                        A
                           v.
                   BAJRANGI RABIDAS
            (Civil Appeal No. 8634 of 2013)
                    SEPTEMBER 23, 2013
                                                                 B
         [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

     Service Law:

       Date of birth - Determination of - Date of birth of c
 employee recorded as 2. 4. 1946 at the time of initial
 employment - Later employee seeking rectification of his
 date of birth as 2.4. 1948 on the basis of his Matriculation
 Certificate - Permissibility - Held: The date of birth mentioned
 in Matriculation Certificate has to be accepted as authentic -
                                                                  0
 But in the present case, the employee in order to gain
 eligibility for appointment did not produce Matriculation
 Certificate at the time of initial appointment - Hence, h·e· is
 estopped from relying on the Matriculation. Certificate -
 Estoppel.
                                                                  E
      Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Jurisdiction under
- Nature and Scope of - Held>Jhe jurisdiction of High Court
 u/Art. 226 is equitable and discretionary - Such jurisdiction
 cannot be exercised, if there is error of law - If a person has
 taken undue advantage, the Court in its extra-ordinary F
jurisdiction would be within its domain to deny discretionary
relief

     The respondent joined the services of a private
colliery as a Mining Sirdar after qualifying three exams.        G
He mentioned his date of birth as 2.4.1946. His date of
birth was reflected in Form 'B' Register and service book
and he signed both the documents. The Colliery was
taken over by Central Government pursuant to Coal
                             895                                 H
    896      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013] 16 S.C.R.


A Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 and the same was
  absorbed by the appellant-Company.

       'Implementation Instruction No.76' was issued in the
  year 1987 laying down procedure for determination
  verification of age of employees, as disputes with regard
8
  to date of birth of employees.

      The respondent filed objection that the entry of his
  date of birth was erroneous as his actual date of birth
  was 2.4.1948 as per his Matriculation Certificate. Pursuant
C to direction of High Court at the instance of the
  respondent, the authority concerned of the appellant
  conducted enquiry and eventually rejected the claims of
  the respondent.

0     Respondent filed writ petition against the order.
  Single Judge of High Court dismissed the petition.
  Division Bench of High Court allowed the writ appeal of
  the respondent and directed for rectification of the
  records and grant of admissible arrears of salary and
E other consequential service benefits. Hence the present
  appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. The Division Bench of H[gh Court has
F taken note of certain facts which are not .correct. The
  respondent had clearly stated in the inquiry that he had
  joined the service on 9.1.1970 as Mining Sirdar and had
  appeared in the Gas Testing Examination held on
  15.5.1969, Sirdarship Examination on 2.7.1969 and
G Overmanship Certificate Examination on 3.7.1973. He had
  obtained all the three statutory certificates where his date
  of birth was recorded as 2.4.1946. [Para 8] [903-C-E]

       2. The Division Bench of the High Court referred to
   Regulation 15(2) of the Regulations to express the view
jH that the respondent could not have been admitted as a
   EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS v.                 897
            BAJRANGI RABIDAS
candidate to the said Examination in the year 1969              A
without submitting the passed certificate of the
secondary school examination of a recognized Board or
its equivalent. The said assumption by the Division
Bench is incorrect as it has not at all taken note of the
facts that have come out in the enquiry conducted by the        B
General Manager. The enquiry report clearly reveals that
the respondent could not produce the Madhyamik
certificate at the time of his appointment as he had not
received the same at that time and the said certificate was
received by him sometime in the year 1970. He had               C
categorically stated that he never produced the certificate
of Madhyamik examination before the Management but
verbally told the fact of his passing of the said
examination to the then Welfare Officer. It was also told
that he had not mentioned passing of the examination at
the time of submission of application to appear before the      D
statutory examination. This being the factual position, the
finding of the Division Bench that he had produced the
Madhyamik School certificate at the time of appearance
in examination is not correct. [Para 8] [903-E-H; 904-A-B]
                                                                E
     3. From the conjoint reading of Regulations 14(1) and
15(1 )(a) of service Regulations, it is quite clear that an
application has to be submitted to the Board not less than
60 days prior to the date fixed for examination. The
respondent had passed the Matriculation Certificate             F
examination in December, 1963. It is quite unusual that
he could not have obtained the certificate till 1969. If the
date of birth, as reflected in the certificate, is taken into
account, then the respondent would· have been eligible
to submit the application for examination. The                  G
construction that can be placed on reading of the
clauses can only be that the respondent he has to be 21
years of age by the time he submitted his application. To
avoid his disqualification to appear in the examination he
took the plea as has come out in the enquiry that he had
                                                                H
    898    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A passed the examination and his date of birth was 2.4.1948.
  [Para 12] [905-E-H]

       4. On an apposite reading of the 'Implementation
  Instructions No. 76', there can be no iota of doubt that the
  date of birth mentioned in Matriculation or Higher
8
  Secondary certificate has to be accepted as authentic.
  But, the present case depicts a different picture. The
  respondent did not produce the Matriculate Certificate,
  though he had passed the said examination. Had he
  produced the said certificate, he could not have
C undertaken the examination and consequently could not
  have been appointed. To secure an appointment, as has
  been found in the enquiry, he made a statement that he
  had not obtained the certificate though he had passed the
  examination and the same was accepted by the Welfare
D Officer of the then private company. [Para 15) [906-H; 907-
  A-C]

       5. The Division Bench has recorded a finding that the
  respondent could not have been allowed to participate in
E the examination without producing the Matriculation
  certificate. The said finding is based on an assumption
  and has been arrived at totally being oblivious of the
  enquiry report which records the statement of the
  respondent. [Para 16) [907-D-E]
F      6. In the present case, the respondent stated this on
  the higher side to gain the advantage of eligibility and
  hence, there is no trace of doubt that principle of estoppel
  would apply. It is well settled in law that jurisdiction of the
  High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is
G equitable and discretionary. The power of the High Court
  is required to be exercised "to reach injustice wherever
  it is found". Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
  Constitution is not to be exercised whenever there is an
  error of law. The powers are purely discretionary and
H though no limits can be placed upon that discretion, it
   EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS v.               899
             BAJRANGI RABIDAS
must be exercised along recognized lines and not              A
arbitrarily and one of the limitations imposed by the
courts on themselves is that they will not exercise
jurisdiction in such class of cases unless substantial
injustice has ensued or is likely to ensue. That apart, the
High Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article    B
226 of the Constitution can always take cognizance of the
entire facts and circumstances and pass appropriate
directions to balance the justice. The jurisdiction being
extraordinary it is required to be exercised keeping in
mind the principles of equity. It is a well-known principle   c
that one of the ends of equity is to promote honesty and
fair play. If a person has takeri an undue advantage, the
court in its extraordinary jurisdiction would be within its
domain to deny the discretionary relief. [Para 17] [908-D~
H;, 908-A, B]
                                                              D
    7. The Division Bench has erred in extending the
benefit to the respondent who had taken undue
advantage by not producing the Matriculation Certificate
solely on the motive to get an entry into service. The
decision on the issue of date of birth of an employee is      E
not only important for the employee but for the employer
also. [Para 17] [909-C-D]
     Union of India vs. C. Rama Swamy and. Ors. (1997) 4
SCC 647: 1997 (3) SCR 760; Sangram Singh vs. Election
Commissioner, Kotah and Anr. (1955) 2 SCR 1; G. M., Bharat    F
Coking Coal Ltd. West Bengal vs. Shib Kumar Dushad and
Ors. (2008) 8 sec 696 - relied on.
                   Case Law Reference :-
    1997 (3) SCR 760        relied on            Para 16      G
    (1955) 2 SCR 1          relied on            Para 17
    (2008) s sec 696        relied on            Para 17
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : ·Civil Appeal No.
8634 of 2013.                                                 H
    900      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 16 S.C.R.


A       From the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2007 of the
    High Court at Calcutta in F.M.A. 169 of 2006.

         Mahabir Singh, Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Aishwarya
    Bhati, Dr. Prikhshayat Singh, Sanjoli Mittal, Monica Sharma for
B   the Appellants.

          Bijan Kumar Ghosh for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
c
        2. Calling in question the legal sustainability of the
  judgment and order dated 17.8.2007 passed by the High Court
  of Judicature at Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 169 of 2006 whereby
  the Division Bench has overturned the judgment and order
D dated 14.6.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.
   No. 5700(W) of 2001 whereunder he had given the stamp of
  approval to decision dated 26.2.2004 by the General Manager
  of the appellant-company, who had rejected the objection of the
   respondent for changing his date of birth as recorded in his
E service excerpts and Form 'B' Register, the appellants have
   preferred their appeal by special leave.

       3. The facts which are requisite to be exposited are that
  the respondent had joined at Chinakuri Mine No. 111 on
F 9.1.1970 as Mining Sirdar and for being selected on the said
  post he had appeared in Gas Testing Examination held on
  15.5.1969. He had also appeared in Sirdarship examination
  held on 2.7.1969 and Overmanship certificate examination on
  3.7.1973. At every stage, he had mentioned his date of birth
  as 2.4.1946. On the basis of the declaration made by the
G respondent his date of birth was clearly reflected in Form 'B'
  Register and service book and he had signed both the
  documents. Be it noted, the appointment of the respondent as
  Mining Sirdar was in a private colliery. After enactment of Coal
  Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 all private collieries were
H taken over by the Central Government and handed over to the
    EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS v.                     901
       BAJRANGI RABIDAS [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

 Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiaries. It is not disputed that the    A
 respondent was absorbed in, the Eastern Coalfields Ltd., a
 subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. It may be noted here that as
 disputes with regar<;l to date of birth of employees had arisen,
 the "Implementation Instruction No. 76" was issued in the year
 1987 laying down the procedure for determination/verification        s
 of age of employees. On 15.5.1987 the respondent filed an
 objection stating that there has been an erroneous entry as
 regards his date of birth because his correct date of birth is
2.4.1948 and not 2.4.1946 as recorded in the service register
and Form 'B' Register. After filing the said objection the            c
respondent chose to maintain silence and, eventually,
approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 6156 (W) of
2001 stating, inter alia, that his date of birth is 2.4.1948 as per
the Matriculation Certificate. The High Court vide order dated
30.7.2003 directed the respondent therein to take a decision          D
on the objections filed by the workman regarding his date of
birth in his service excerpts after offering a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to him and further keeping in view
the provisions contained in "Implementation Instruction No. 76".

     4. In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court the        E
General Manager, Sodepur Area, conducted an enquiry give
due regard to the principles of natural justice and the guidelines
enumerated in "Implementation Instruction No. 76" and rejected
his claim vide order dated 26.2.2004.
                                                                      F
     5. Being dissatisfied the respondent preferred W.P.(W)
No. 5700 of 2001. The learned single Judge took note of series
of facts, namely, that the respondent was signatory to the
documents, namely, the Form 'B' Register and the service
book; that his date of birth as 2.4.1946 was mentioned in the         G
two certificates, namely, Gas Testing and Overmanship
Certificate and Sirdarship Certificate; the Gas Testing
examination was held on 15.5.1969 and as per Regulation
14(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 (for short "the
Regulations") application for the said examination was required
                                                                      H
    902     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A to be submitted not less than sixty days prior to the date fixed
  for the examination and as per Regulation 15(1) of the
  Regulations no person could have been admitted as a
  candidate at any examination held by the Board unless he had
  completed 21 years of age; that had the respondent produced
B his Matriculation Certificate which reflected his date of birth as
  2.4.1948, he would not have been in a position to appear in
  the Gas Testing examination as by the time the form was filled
   up he would have been less than 21 years of age; that he had
   not correctly stated his age was only to avail a benefit at that
C juncture is writ large; that he had half-heartedly raised an
   objection in the year 1987 pertaining to the service record
   though it was within his knowledge that as per the Matriculation
   Certificate his date of birth is 2.4.1948; that he approached the
   courtqyite belatedly in 2001 for redressal of his grievances; and
D .that he cannot be allowed to take the benefit of securing an
   appointment by stating a different date of birth and thereafter
   endeavour to have further advantage of continuance of service
   on the basis of age mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate.
    Being of this view the learned single Judge dismissed the writ
    petition.
E
        6. Grieved by the order passed by the writ court the
  respondent preferred an appeal and the Division Bench took
  note of the fact that the Identity Card issued by the private
  colliery at the time of initial appointment reflected his date of
F birth to be as 2.4.1948; that the respondent-authorities were not
  in a position to explain how and under what circumstances the
  date of birth of the workman was subsequently changed in the
  service book; that for appearing in the Sirdarpur Certificate
  examination under the Regulations the prescribed minimum age
G of a candidate is 20 years and not 21 years; that the.authorities
  have not taken the decision correctly in view of the
  "Implementation Instruction No. 76"; and that when the initial
  date of birth in the Identity Card mentioned the date of birth to
   be 2.4.1948, the same could not have been changed by the!
H ECL authorities. Being of this view, the Division Bench directed
    EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS v.                         903
       BAJRANGI RABIDAS [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
for rectification of the records and grant of admissible arrears          A
of salary and other consequential service benefits.

    7. We have heard Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior
counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bijan Ghose, learned
counsel for the respondent.
                                                                          B
      8. At the outset, it is essential to be stated that the learnec:t
single Judge had dismissed the writ petition in a summary
manner and the Division Bench has taken note of certain facts
which are not correct and also relied upon the amended
regulation. As has been stated earlier, on the basis of the order         C
passed by the writ court on 30.7.2003 the General Manager
conducted an enquiry. The facts that have been enumerated in
the enquiry proceeding are absolutely relevant for apposite
delineation of the lis in question. The concerned authority had
issued notice to the respondent who appeared before him on                D
6.2.2004. He had clearly stated before him that he had joined
the service on 9.1.1970 as Mining Sirdar and had appeared
in the Gas Testing Examination held on 15.5.1969, Sirdarship
Examination on 2. 7 .1969 and Overmanship Certificate
Examination on 3.7.1973. He had obtained all the three                    E
statutory certificates where his date of birth was recorded as·
2.4.1946. It is worthy to note that the Division Bench has
referred to Regulation 15(2) of the Regulations to express the
view that the appellant therein 9ould not have been admitted
as a candidate to the said Examination in the year 1969 without
                                                                          F
submitting the passed certificate of the secondary school
examination of a recognized Board or its equivalent. The said
assumption by the Division Bench is incorrect as it has not at
all taken note of the facts that have come out in the enquiry
conducted by the General Manager. The enquiry report clearly
reveals that the respondent could not produce the Madhyamik               G
certificate at the time of his appointment as he had not received
the same at that time and the said certificate was received by
him sometime in the year 1970. He had categorically stated
that he never produced the certificate of Madhyamik
                                                                          h
    904      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 16 S.C.R.


A examination before the Management but verbally told the fact
  of his passing of the said examination to the then Welfare
  Officer. It was also told that he had not mentioned passing of
  the examination at the time of submission of application to
  appear before the statutory examination. This being the factual
B position, the finding of the Division Bench that he had produced
  the Madhyamik School certificate at the time of appearance in
  examination is not correct.

       9. It is perceptible that the Division Bench has referred to
  Regulation 15(1 )(a) of the Regulations to come to the
C conclusion that the respondent had not availed any benefit as
  the prescribed minimum age of a candidate is twenty years. In
  this context, we may refer to Regulation 15(1 )(a) and (b) which
  read as follows:-

D         15. Age and general qualifications of candidates - (1)
          (a) No person shall be admitted as a candidate at any
          examination held by the Board unless he is 20 years of
          age.

          (b) No person shall be admitted as a candidate at any
E
          examination for a Manager's, Surveyor's, Overman's,
          Sirdar's, or Shotfirer's Certificate unless he holds a valid
          first aid certificate of the standard of the St. John
          Ambulance Association (India):

F         Provided that if any candidate satisfies the Board that he
          has not sufficient opportunity to obtain such first-aid
          certificate, the Board may, by order in writing admit him
          to the examination on such conditions, if any as it thinks
          fit to impose :
G
        10. It is imperative to note that "20 years of age" occurring
    in Regulation 15(1 )(a) was substituted by Notification No.
    G.S.R. 32 dated 16.12.1978. Regulation 15(1)(a) prior to 1978
    read as follows: -
H
     EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS v.                       905
        BAJRANGI RABIDAS [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
      "15. Age and general qualifications of.candidates- (1) (a)         A
      No person shall be admitted as a candidate at any
      examination held by the Board unless he is 21 years of
      age."

      Thus, in 1969 the above quoted regulation was in force.
                                                                         B
      11. At this juncture, we may fruitfully refer to Regulation 14
 of the Regulations. It reads as follows: -

      "14. Submission of application - (1) Application for an
      examination conducted by the Board shall be made to the            c
      Board not less than 60 days prior to the date fixed for the
      examination and on a form supplied for the purpose.

      (2) Notice regarding the date and place of examination for
      the Manager's, Surveyor's and Overman's certificate shall
      be published under the order of the Board in such                  D
      periodicals as the Board may direct, not less than 60 days
      prior to the date fixed by the Board for receiving
      applications."

        12. From the conjoint reading of Regulations 14(1) and           E
  15(1 )(a) it is quite clear that an application has to be submitted
  to the Board not less than 60 days prior to the date fixed for
  examination. The respondent had passed the Matriculation
  Certificate examination in December, 1963. It is quite unusual
  that he could not have obtained the certificate till 1969. Be that     F
  as it may, if the date of birth, as reflected in the certificate, is
. taken into account, then the respondent would have been
  eligible to submit the application for examination. The
  construction that can be placed on reading of the clauses can
  only be that he has to be 21 years of age by the time he               G
  submitted his application. To avoid his disqualification to
  appear in the examination he took the plea as has come out
  in the enquiry that he had passed the examination and his date
  of birth was 2.4.1948.

      13. Learned counsel for the respondent has invited our             H
    906          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 16 S.C.R.


A   attention to the "Implementation Instruction No. 76" has tried to
    support the order passed by the Division Bench. Para (A)(i)
    deals with Matriculation certificate. It reads as follows: -

           "(i)    Matriculates.

B         In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation
          or equivalent examinations, the date of birth recorded in
          the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth
          and the same will not be altered under any circumstances."

c         14. Para (A)(v) deals with revision of determination of date
    of birth in respect of existing employees. Paras (A)(v)(i)(a) and
    (b) are as follows: -

          "(v) Review determination of date of birth in respect
          of existing employees.
D
           (i)     (a) In the case of the existing employees
                   Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary
                   Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or
                   Board or Middle pass Certificate issued by the
E                  Board of Education and/or Department of Public
                   Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid
                   Bodies should be treated as correct provided they
                   were issued by the said Universities/Boards/
                   Institutions prior to the date of employment.
F                  (b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarhip, Winding Engine or
                   similar other statutory certificates where the
                   Manager had to certify the date of birth will be
                   treated as authentic.

G                  Provided that where both documents mentioned in
                   (i)(a) and (i)(b) above are available, the date of birth
                   recorded in (i)(a) will be treated as authentic."

      15. On an apposite reading of the instructions there can
H be no iota of doubt that the date of birth mentioned in
/         EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. AND OTHERS v.                      907
             BAJRANGI RABIDAS [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
    Matriculation or Higher Secondary certificate has to be                  A
    accepted as authentic. But, a pregnant one, as has been
    indicated hereinbefore, the case at hand depicts a different
    picture. The respondent did not produce the Matriculate
    Certificate, though he had passed the said examination. It is
    because, we are inclined to think, had he produced the said              B
    certificate, he could not have undertaken the examination and
    consequently could not have been appointed. To secure an
    appointment, as has been found in the en,quiry, he made a
    statement that he had not obtained the certificate though he had
    passed the examination and the same was accepted by the                  c
    Welfare Officer of the theri private company.

         16. The question that arises for consideration is that once
    he had availed the benefit by not stating the correct fact whether
    the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
    of India should be extended to him. The Division Bench has               D
    recorded a finding the respondent could not have been allowed
    to participate in the examination without producing the
    Matriculation certificate. The said finding is based on an
    assumption and has been arrived at totally being oblivious of
    the enquiry report which records the statement of the                    E
    respondent. In this context, we may profitably reproduce a
    passage from Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy and others: 1-

          "l n matters relating to appointment to service various
          factors are taken into consideration before making a               F
          selection or an appointme'nt. One of the relevant
          circumstances is the age of the person who is sought to
          be appointed. It may not be possible to conclusively prove
          that an advantage had been gained by representing a date
          of birth which is different than that which is later sought to     G
          be incorporated. But it will not be unreasonable to presume
          that when a candidate. at the first instance. communicates
          a particular date of birth there is obviously his intention that
          his age calculated on the basis of that date of birth should

     1.   (1997) 4 SCC647.                                                   H
    908        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2013] 16 S.C.R.


A         be taken into consideration by the appointing authority for
          adjudging his suitability for a responsible office. In fact,
          where maturity is a relevant factor to access suitability, an
          older person is ordinarily considered to be more mature
          and, therefore, more suitable. In such a case, it cannot be
B         said that advantage is not obtained by -a person because
          of an earlier date of birth, if he subsequently claims to be
          younger in age, after taking that advantage. In such a
          situation, it would be against public policy to permit such
          a change to enable longer benefit to the person
c         concerned."

          [Underlining is ours]

          17. The controversy· can be viewed from another angle.
    Thereafter, the learned Judges opined that there is no
D   justification in the proposition that principle of estoppel would
    not apply in such a situation. As is manifest, in the case at hand
    the respondent stated this on the higher side to gain the
    advantage of eligibility and hence, we have no trace of doubt
    that principle of estoppel would apply on all fours. It is well
E   settled in law that jurisdiction of the High. Court under Article
    226 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The
     power of the· High Court is required to be exercised "to reach
     injustice wherever it is found". In Sangram Singh v. Election
     Commissioner, Kotah and another2, it has been observed that
F   jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not to be
     exercised whenever there is an error of law. The powers are
     purely discretionary and though no limits can be placed upon
     that discretion, it must be exercised along recognized lines and
     not arbitrarily and one of the limitations imposed by the courts
G    on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in such
     class of cases unless substantial injustice has ensued or is
     likely to ensue. That apart, the High Court while exercising the
     jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can always take
     cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances and pass
H 2.      (1955) 2 SCR 1.
      EASiERN COALFIELDS LTD. ANO OTHERS v.                     909
         BAjRANGI RABIDAS [OIPAK MISRA,: :J.]
  appropriate directions to balance the justice. The jurisdiction      A
  being ex:trao.rdinary it is required to be exercised keeping in
  mind the p·rin~iples of equity. It .is a well-known principle that
  orieof the ends of equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If
  a person: has taken an undue adv::lntage the court in its
  extraordinary jurisdiction would be within its domain to deny the    B
  discretionary relief. In fact, Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel
  for the appellants, has basically rested his submission on this
  axis. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench has erred
  in extending the benefit to the respondent Who had taken undue
  advantage by not producing the Matriculation Certificate solely      c
  on the motive to get an entry into service. It is apt to note here
. that this Court in G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal
  v. Shib Kumar Dushad and others3 has ruled that the decision
  on th~ issue of date of birth of an employee is not only
  important for the employee but for the employer also.
                                                                       D
     18. In view of our aforesaid premised reasons we are
unable to concur with the view taken by the HiQh Court in F.M.A.
No. 169 of 2006 and, accordingly, the Judgment dated
17.8.2007 passed by the Division Bench is set aside. · ·
                                                                       E
     19, Resultantly, the appeal is allowed with no order as to
costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy                                  Appeal allowed.




 3.   (200B) s sec 696.