JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - The dispute in this petition pertains to petitioner's date of birth which has a bearing on the date of his retirement from, service. According to the petitioner his date of birth is 18th December, 1924 and he was liable to retire from service on the last day of the month of December, 1982 i. e. 31st December, 1982, when he attained the age of superannuation viz., 58 years. According to the opposite parties the petitioner's date of birth is 1st July, 1923 and, therefore, he attained the age of 58 years on 30th June, 1981 and became liable to be retired from service on 1st July, 1981. 2. The facts about which there is no dispute are as follows : The petitioner was recruited as constable in the U.P. Police on 2nd August, 1943. After earning promotions he ultimately became Subinspector of Police. While posted as subinspector of Police, he received an order dated 23rd January, 1981 which mentioned that he would attain the age of 58 years on 30th June, 1981 and he would, accordingly, retire from service with effect from 1st July, 1981. On receipt of this order the petitioner preferred representation on 9th February, 1981 which was rejected in June, 1981. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 3027 of 1981 in this Court and got an interim order against his retirement with effect from 1st July, 1981. The Writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 18th February, 1982 on account of availability of alternative remedy before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. The petitioner approached the Tribunal under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim petition on 17th August, 1982 whereafter the present writ petition was filed in this court on 23rd August, 1982. It was admitted on 24th August, 1982. On the same day an interim order was passed to the effect that the petitioner will be allowed to continue in service till December, 1982 provided he gave an undertaking before the opposite parties that in case the Writ Petition fails, the excess amount paid to him shall be refunded by him or that the same may be realised from him. On 27th February, 1986, the opposite parties filed C.M. Application No. 2594 (W) of 1985 for vacation of the interim order along with the counter affidavit. On 27th February, 1986, the opposite parties filed C.M. Application No. 2594 (W) of 1985 for vacation of the interim order along with the counter affidavit. This application came up for disposal before me on 17th March, 1986 when by an order of that date it was clarified that the interim order was operative only upto December, 1982, and therefore, the interim order was no longer in operation. The Writ Petition has now come up for final hearing after exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits. 3. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal indicates that on behalf of the opposite parties it was pressed that in view of U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 it was not open to the petitioner to claim correction of his recorded date of birth. It further appears that on behalf of the petitioner it was asserted that the recorded date of birth had not been entered in accordance with the procedure prescribed under paragraph 301 of the U.P. Police Office Manual and, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the recorded date of birth. The Tribunal found that the petitioner indeed was not entitled to challenge the recorded date of birth in view of 1974 Rules. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that the first page of the petitioner's service Roll which contained the year of his birth as 1923 had been thumb marked by the petitioner himself and, therefore, it will be presumed that the recorded entry was made after explaining the entry to the petitioner in accordance with paragraph 301 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the entry was recorded in violation of the said provision. The tribunal observed that the year of birth was recorded with the knowledge thereof to the petitioner from the very beginning and if the petitioner thought that the said year was wrongly recorded he should have agitated the matter earlier and should not have waited for the close of his service period for agitating the same. 4. The petitioner's case is that the year of birth was not entered in his service record on the basis of any representation made by him. 4. The petitioner's case is that the year of birth was not entered in his service record on the basis of any representation made by him. He maintains that at the time of entry he was asked about his age and he had disclosed the same to be 18 years and had also shown the transfer certificate of class X which recorded his date of birth as 18th December, 1924. It is also the petitioner's case that his service record does not contain either the date or month of petitioner's birth but merely contains the year as 1923 and this year was entered on the basis of the opinion expressed by the Civil Surgeon. According to him the petitioner appeared to be aged about 20 years in 1943 when he was recruited to the service. The petitioner points out that the police Department made an enquiry from the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education which also replied that according to their record the petitioner's date of birth was 18th December, 1924. A copy of the communication sent by the said Board to the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Lucknow, is annexed as Annexure No. 4. This communication bears the date 12th June, 1981. According to the petitioner he had appeared at the High School Examination but had failed. It was pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner had succeeded at the High School Examination, the High School Certificate would have contained the date of birth mentioned in Annexure No. 4. On this basis the learned counsel submits that there is no occasion not to rely upon the date of birth mentioned in Annexure 4. 5. On this basis the learned counsel submits that there is no occasion not to rely upon the date of birth mentioned in Annexure 4. 5. Rule 2 of the U.P. Recruitment to services (Determination of Birth) Rules, 1974 reads as follows : The date of birth of a Government Servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government Service or where a Government Servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the Government Service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to his service, including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever. 6. The above provision covers three categories of Government Servants First, those who entered the Government service after having passed the High School or equivalent examination, Second, those who passed such examination after entering the Government Service and third, those who have not passed any such examination either before entering the Service or afterwards. The rule contemplates two distinct methods of reckoning the date of birth of Government Servants. One method is with reference to the date mentioned in the certificate of having passed the High School or equivalent examination and the other is with reference to the date or age mentioned in the service book. The former method applied only to Government servants falling in the first category and the latter applies to Government Servants falling in the second and third categories. Whether the date of birth is determined by the former method or by the latter method, conclusiveness attaches thereto. This flows first from the fact that the rule is a deeming one and second from the fact that the rule eliminates scope for representation. 7. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner appeared at the High School Examination Conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education but failed. This flows first from the fact that the rule is a deeming one and second from the fact that the rule eliminates scope for representation. 7. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner appeared at the High School Examination Conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education but failed. From annexure 4 it appears that the petitioner appeared at the said examination in the year 1943, i.e. in the same year in which he was recruited as a constable in the U.P. Police, but prior to his entry in the Police Force, as the Examination was held prior to June, 1943 while the petitioner was recruited in August, 1943. Although neither party has mentioned the dates of commencement and end of academic year in 1943 but judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in the year 1943 the academic session commenced on 1st July and ended on 30th June of the succeeding year. Annexure 4 mentions the petitioner's date of birth as 18th December, 1924. This annexure is copy of letter sent by the Secretary of the aforesaid Board to Sri Pratap Narain Saksena, Superintendent of Police, Railways, Lucknow, in reply to his letter dated 6th June, 1981. On receipt of the retirement notice dated 23rd January, 1981 the petitioner had preferred representation dated 9th February. 1981. Obviously the Superintendent of Police made enquiry from the Board to verify the petitioner's claim that in the records of the Board his date of birth was recorded as claimed by him. Now the petitioner submits that so far as authenticity of the date of birth is concerned, annexure 4 is as good as a High School pass certificate. His learned counsel points out that if the petitioner had been fortunate enough to pass the said examination, he would have been issued a certificate of having passed the examination and that certificate would have contained the same date of birth of the petitioner as is contained in Annexure 4. The learned counsel submits that either rule 2 may be extended to cover the date of birth contained in the records of the Board or it may be struck down as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned counsel submits that either rule 2 may be extended to cover the date of birth contained in the records of the Board or it may be struck down as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel the rule makes an invidious classification between the Government Servant who succeeded at the High School or equivalent examination and those who failed there at, He submits that there is no reasonable basis for this classification. 8. This brings us to the question as to what is the object of Rule 2? The obvious object is to ensure certainty about the service career of Government servants. This certainty is important not only from the point of view of the Government servant who is sought to be retired but also from the; point of view of his junior colleagues who are looking forward to promotion against the vacancy due to occur on his retirement. No exception can be taken to this object of the rule. How the object is to be achieved is to be left to the Rulemaking authority. 9. In the present case the object is sought to be achieved by giving finality to the concerned Government servant's own representation about his age or date of birth. A candidate appearing at the High School or equivalent examination is required to fill up the prescribed form in his own hand writing. In one of the columns of this form he is required to enter his date of birth. This entry is his own representation and he can reasonably be pinned down to it. This is the justification for giving finality to the date of birth entered in the certificate of passing the High School or equivalent examination. 10. Invariably Government Service is obtained after making an Application therefore. In such an application usually the candidate is required to mention his date of birth or age also. The date of birth or age mentioned in such an application is also the own representation of the concerned Government servant. The service record will invariably reflect this representation and, therefore, the Government servant can be pinned down to it. Accordingly the action of the rulemaking authority cannot be said to be Arbitrary when it debars the concerned Government servant from departing from his own representation. 11. The service record will invariably reflect this representation and, therefore, the Government servant can be pinned down to it. Accordingly the action of the rulemaking authority cannot be said to be Arbitrary when it debars the concerned Government servant from departing from his own representation. 11. The position of a candidate who has failed at the High School or equivalent examination cannot be equated with that of a candidate who has passed the said examination. The result of the passed candidate is published in the U.P. Gazette wherein also the date of birth is mentioned. The Gazette is a permanent official record of the Government. After some time the application forms may be weeded out. There may be scope for interpolation in the application form; there is no such scope in the certificate, Because if any interpolation is done it can be detected by reference to the Gazette notification. In my opinion, therefore, the classification impugned by the learned counsel has a reasonable basis and, therefore rule 2 cannot be said to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. The question that still survives for consideration is whether on the facts of the present case finality can be attached to the date of birth recorded in the petitioner's service book. If that entry can be said to be based on petitioner's representation, he must be pinned down to it. To me it appears that the entry is not based on petitioner's own representation. 13. The opposite parties have not placed on record any document containing petitioner's representation about his age or date of birth. In paragraph 5 of the counteraffidavit it is stated that at the time of recruitment the petitioner stated his year of birth as 1923. The petitioner on the other hand states in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that he got noted to the Recruitment Inspector his date of birth as 18th December, 1924. In paragraph 5 he has stated that after his recruitment he was sent to the Civil Surgeon for Medical Examination and he estimated his age in 1943 as twenty years. According to the petitioner his year of birth was recorded as 1923 on the basis of the estimate made by the Civil Surgeon. In paragraph 5 he has stated that after his recruitment he was sent to the Civil Surgeon for Medical Examination and he estimated his age in 1943 as twenty years. According to the petitioner his year of birth was recorded as 1923 on the basis of the estimate made by the Civil Surgeon. In paragraph 7 of the counteraffidavit which contains reply to paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner's allegation that he was sent for medical examination and the Civil Surgeon estimated his age to be twenty years, has not been denied. As indicated herein above, the petitioner was recruited as constable in the same year in which he appeared at the High School examination. A few months before entering this service he filled up the High School Examination form in which he mentioned his date of birth. Thus the petitioner was aware not only of his year of birth at the time of his recruitment but also of his date of birth. There was, therefore, no occasion for the petitioner to mention the year of birth and not the date and month of the birth. This lends considerable support to the petitioner's allegation that his date of birth was not recorded on the basis of his representation but on the basis of the estimate made by the Civil Surgeon. An estimate is at best a guess or surmise. It is not accurate. There is scope of variation. In the present case the difference in age asserted by the petitioner and by the opposite parties is only of 11 years. This is easily coverable by the variation scope. Therefore, no finality can be attached to the estimate made by the Civil Surgeon. As against the estimate of the Civil Surgeon, very reliable evidence of the age is the letter of the Board, annexure 4. The Tribunal's order does not refer to it although it refers to the transfer Certificate issued on behalf of the institution at which the petitioner had studied and to the extract from the Scholar's Register. It may not be possible to attach much authenticity to these documents as they come from the custody of private institutions but the same cannot be said about annexure 4. 14. It may not be possible to attach much authenticity to these documents as they come from the custody of private institutions but the same cannot be said about annexure 4. 14. In view of the above while upholding the vires of rule 2, I am of the opinion that on the facts of the present case the opposite parties should have determined the petitioner's age of superannuation with reference to his date of birth mentioned in annexure 4. 15, Before closing, reference may be made to paragraph 301 of the U.P. Police Office Manual, mention of which has been made by the Tribunal also. The Tribunal has observed that since the petitioner has put his thumb impression on the first page of his service roll it has to be presumed that the provisions of paragraph 301 had been followed and the entry had been explained to the petitioner. Paragraph 301 reads as follows : In writing up page 1 of the roll the following instructions should be observed : (a) The date of birth should be ascertained as nearly as possible. Recruits should, on enlistment, be asked to produce evidence, from family or other records or testimony of relatives or neighbours, of their correct age. If the age stated by the recruit differs from that certified by the Civil Surgeon, the Superintendent of Police should make a careful inquiry and record a finding as to the correct age ; he should then note the age so determined on page 1 of the roll opposite the other entries relating to age. The entry should be in the form Age determined by Superintendent of Police and should be signed and dated by the Superintendent of Police. (b) All entries should be clearly explained to the recruit who should be required to affix his signature or seal, as well as his thumb impression on page 1 and he should be informed that alterations will not be permitted except on very good grounds. (c) . (d) . Clause (a) enjoins upon the Superintendent of Police to make inquiry about the age or date of birth of a person who has been recruited to the Police Force. It requires the Superintendent of Police to ask the recruit to produce evidence of his correct age. (c) . (d) . Clause (a) enjoins upon the Superintendent of Police to make inquiry about the age or date of birth of a person who has been recruited to the Police Force. It requires the Superintendent of Police to ask the recruit to produce evidence of his correct age. If the age stated by the recruit differs from the age certified by the Civil Surgeon, the Superintendent of Police is enjoined to make a careful enquiry and record a finding as to the correct age. Only thereafter note of age or date of birth is required to be made on page 1 of the service roll. From this it appears that reference is made to the Civil Surgeon regarding the age of recruits. The petitioner's allegations that he was also referred to the Civil Surgeon finds support from the above provision. But in view of the fact that the age certified by the Civil Surgeon was different from that given by the petitioner, an inquiry was required to be made. After inquiry the entry is required to be made in the form mentioned in clause (a). The present entry has not been made in the manner prescribed in clause (a). Therefore, the entry cannot be said to have been made in accordance with paragraph 301. Accordingly the presumption drawn by the Tribunal cannot be drawn. 16. For the discussion herein the writ petition is allowed and the Tribunal's order dated 17th August, 1982, annexure 8, and the retirement order dated 23rd January, 1981 are hereby quashed. The petitioner's date of birth shall be treated as 18th December, 1924 and he shall be deemed to have retired from service on 31st December, 1982 and not on 1st February, 1981. There shall be no order as to costs.