Judgment Per Chief Justice: 1. The appeal is taken up for hearing by treating it as included in the day's cause list. 2. The appellant, writ petitioner, is an employee of the respondent Bank. The dispute giving rise to the writ petition centres round the questi0n of his birth date. The precise question for decision is whether he is entitled to the relief directing the. respondent Bank to treat him as having been born on January 17,1931 and not January 17, 1930 and on that basis to superannuate him on January 31, 1991 and not January 31, 1990. The dismissal of the writ petition Sub-staintially seeking these reliefs has given rise to the present appeal. 3. By virtue of an ad interim order passed on January 29, 1990 on the connected application, the respondent Bank was restrained from retiring the appellant on January 31, 1990 on the basis of his date of birth recorded as January 17, 1930. He is, therefore, continuing in service till date. 4. The appellant was appointed as clerk in the Bank of India Limited at Calcutta on March 2, 1941. The original application, if any, made by him seeking employment is not forthcoming nor the letter of appointment. The only document evidencing the appointment is a form which is alleged to have been filled in by or at the instance of the appellant and which is brought on record of the case as an annexure to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Bank in the Trial Court. The upper portion of the form, inter alia, shows that he was engaged from March 2, 1948 on probation for a period of three years at a monthly salary of Rs.65/per month. The lower portion of the form which bears the heading "Questions to be answered by the applicant for employment" contains particulars such as name, address, date and place of birth, caste, date of passing the Matriculation Examination etc. Against the column "Date and place of birth", the entry is "17th January, 1930, in Calcutta". Against the columns "Have you passed the Matriculation Examination? If so, give date of passing" and "Has the certificate been shown to the accountant"? the entries respectively are "Yes, in 1947" and "Please see below". The concerned endorsement at the foot is as follows: "Certificate not yet received from the University. Submitted Headmasters Certificate stating that he passed the Matriculation Examination. If so, give date of passing" and "Has the certificate been shown to the accountant"? the entries respectively are "Yes, in 1947" and "Please see below". The concerned endorsement at the foot is as follows: "Certificate not yet received from the University. Submitted Headmasters Certificate stating that he passed the Matriculation Examination. I am satisfied." The endorsement is signed by the Accountant. 5. Initially, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the Trial Court, the stand of the respondent Bank was that the appellant had joined service by submitting an application in the Bank's format "and that in the application "he declared his date of birth as 17.1.1930" and also that the Headmaster's Certificate shown by the appellant was "in support of his statement in the Bank's format". The "format" referred to in the affidavit in-opposition is the "form" adverted to earlier in the course of this judgment. The implication of these averments apparently was that the format was filled in by the appellant. The appellant vehemently denied the suggestion The Trial Court held that it could not decide such a disputed question of fact. At the appellate stage, the respondent Bank has taken up the stand that all the particulars including the date of birth were entered in the format on the basis of information furnished by the appellant. Even this version is controverted by the appellant who denies having furnished the relevant information and alleges that the format is no more than office record, various columns whereof are filled in different hands and one is type written and that it is signed by the Agent and the Accountant of the Calcutta office without proper verification. He also relies upon the fact that his surname is wrongly spelt as "Banerji" in the said format, although the correct spelling recorded even in the other service record maintained by the Bank, is "Banerjee", According to the appellant there is inherent evidence furnished by the manner in which the format has been prepared and maintained to suggest that it was not filled in on the basis of the particulars furnished by him at the time of his appointment. 6. Another point of controversy pertaining to the date of birth as reflected in the form (format) may also be adverted to. The Accountant's endorsement at the foot of the form which has been extracted hereinabove, refers to the Headmaster's Certificate submitted by the appellant. 6. Another point of controversy pertaining to the date of birth as reflected in the form (format) may also be adverted to. The Accountant's endorsement at the foot of the form which has been extracted hereinabove, refers to the Headmaster's Certificate submitted by the appellant. The case of the respondent Bank is that the said Certificate mentioned January 17, 1930 as the date of birth and that on that bash the date of birth was accordingly entered in the form. The respondent Bank wants the appellant to produce the said original Certificate if he wants to contend otherwise. The appellant's case, on the other hand, is that since Matriculation Certificate was not a available he had submitted the Headmaster's Certificate and that the date of birth was not mentioned therein. He wants the respondent Bank to produce the said original Certificate' since it was submitted to the Accountant at the time of recruitment and was in the Bank's possession. Ordinarily, such a disputed question of fact cannot decided in Writ Jurisdiction. However, in the present case, there is inherent evidence in the form which supports the plea taken by the appellant. The contents of the relevant columns of the form and the Accountant's endorsement at the foot thereof, if read together, lead to the only conclusion that the Headmaster's Certificate was submitted that is was given to the Accountant by the appellant solely as evidence of his having passed the Matriculation Examination since the Matriculation Certificate was not available at the time. The Accountant's endorsement, if it is properly read is relatable only to those columns which have a bearing on the passing of the Matriculation Examination and not to the column against which the date of birth is entered in the form It is not possible to establish any connection between or nexus with the Headmaster's Certificate and the entry concerning the date of birth having regard to the contents of and the context in which the endorsement occurs in the form. It is therefore, impossible to arrive at the conclusion that the Headmaster's Certificate submitted by the appellant at the time of his recruitment mentioned January 17, 1930 as his birth date and also that the said Certificate is "till in his possession and that he is purposely withholding it. 7. On December 16, 1948, the appellant obtained a provisional Matriculation Certificate from the Calcutta University. 7. On December 16, 1948, the appellant obtained a provisional Matriculation Certificate from the Calcutta University. According to the said Certificate, his age was sixteen years and one month on March 1. 1947. His birth date, accordingly, requires to be reckoned as February 1, 1931. Along with his affidavit-in-reply to the application for interim relief filed in the instant proceeding, the appellant has produced a letter dated June 1, 1988 (Annexure 'Y') addressed by the by the Chief Manager, Bowbazar Branch to the Zonal Manager. Eastern Zone. In the said letter a references made to the said provisional Matriculation Certificate in the following terms: "On an examination of the said certificate, we observe from an endorsement overleaf, that the same was duly seen and verified by Sri S. K. Choudhury, the then Chief Accountant, Calcutta Main Office who later retired as the Chief of this Zone." It would thus appear that within eight months of his joining service the appellant had produced before a senior and responsible Officer of the respondent Bank the provisional Matriculation Certificate, according to which, his date of birth is February 1, 1931. 8. It is the case of the appellant that he was never shown or apprised of his date of birth as recorded in the form and that he honestly believed that his date of birth was correctly entered in the concerned records on the basis of the provisional Matriculation Certificate produced by him as aforesaid within months of his joining duty. 9. The appellant has produced the Matriculation Certificate (final) issued by the Calcutta University on September 12, 1947 along with his affidavit in-reply to the application for interim relief. The said certificate also mentions that he was aged sixteen years and one month on March 1, 1947. 10. It would be convenient at this stage to deal with a point raised by the respondent Bank in connection with the age of the appellant as mentioned in the Matriculation Certificates (provisional and final). Whereas, according to these Certificates, the appellant's date of birth would be February 1, 1931, his case all throughout has been that his correct date of birth is January 17, 1931. The respondent Bank contends that the Certificates do not, therefore, support the case of the appellant. Whereas, according to these Certificates, the appellant's date of birth would be February 1, 1931, his case all throughout has been that his correct date of birth is January 17, 1931. The respondent Bank contends that the Certificates do not, therefore, support the case of the appellant. The appellant's explanation is that at the material time it was not the practice or system in the Calcutta University to precisely mention the date of birth with reference to day, month and year and that the age used to be specified only with reference to years and month (s) in the Matriculation Certificate and that therefore, the age was mentioned as sixteen years one month and not sixteen years seventeen days. The Matriculation Certificates (provisional and final) produced by the appellant appear to support the explanation of the appellant. The material part of the printed standard form of the Certificate requires the name of the candidate and that of the School or institution in which he was studying to be filled in and then goes on to provide for the age to be mentioned as follows: "aged ............ years .......:... months on the 1st of Match, 1947. It is thus apparent that the age was reckoned in years and months and not days, months and years. In the case of the appellant, therefore' the Certificates mentioned sixteen years and one month and not sixteen years and seventeen days. Despite the discrepancy, what is incontrovertible is that according to these Certificates the year of the appellant's birth is 1931 and not 1930. 11. On June-1, 1948, the appellant was confirmed in the service of the respondent Bank. He was, thereupon, enrolled as a member of the Provident Fund Scheme. In the half yearly printed statements issued by the Provident Fund Authorities since 1978, a few copies whereof have been annexed by the appellant to the writ petition as well as to the application for interim relief, the appellant's date of birth is mentioned as January 17, 1931. He was, thereupon, enrolled as a member of the Provident Fund Scheme. In the half yearly printed statements issued by the Provident Fund Authorities since 1978, a few copies whereof have been annexed by the appellant to the writ petition as well as to the application for interim relief, the appellant's date of birth is mentioned as January 17, 1931. The case of the appellant is that the authorities of the respondent Bank supplied the necessary service particulars including the date of birth to the Trustees of the Provident Fund Scheme and that on that basis the said birth date was mentioned in the statements', The respondent Bank alleges, on the other hand, that the relevant particulars were shown on the basis of the declaration given by the members at the time of joining the Provident Fund Scheme and that they are based on the record of the Bank. Be that as it may, the fact that the birth date was accordingly mentioned in those statements since 1978 cannot be overlooked. 12. The seniority list of Officers of the respondent Bank as on June 30, 1979 (Annexure 'A' to the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the Trial Court) was duly published by the Head Office at Bombay. A copy thereof was sent to the Regional Office at Calcutta. The appellant's date of birth was therein mentioned as January 17, 1930. The exact dates of publication at the Head Office and the dispatch and receipt thereof at the Regional Office at Calcutta are not available on record. It is the case of the appellant that soon after he came to know about the incorrect mention of his date of birth in the said seniority list, he made a representation (Annexure 'C' to the application for interim relief) to the Assistant General Manager, Eastern Region, Calcutta on May 26. 1981 drawing attention to the mistake and enclosing a Photostat Copy of the Matriculation Certificate and requesting for necessary correction. This representation was not decided for almost seven years. 1981 drawing attention to the mistake and enclosing a Photostat Copy of the Matriculation Certificate and requesting for necessary correction. This representation was not decided for almost seven years. By a' communication dated March 22, 1988, (Annexure "I" to the application for interim relief), the Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone, informed the Chief Manager, Bowbazar Branch, that the matter was referred to the Head Office for their consideration and that the Head Office had advised that the appellant had declared 1930 as his year of birth at the time of joining service was accepted and entered in the Bank's record and that no subsequent change was permissible. The Chief Manager was asked to inform the appellant accordingly. 13. Another seniority list of Officers as on December 31, 1981 (Annexure 'D' to the application for interim relief) was published by the respondent Bank. Although the exact date of its publication is not available on record, the publication and circulation could not have obviously taken place earlier than in the first part of 1982. In the said seniority list, the appellant's date of birth was once again shown as January 17,1930. It is the case of the appellant that since he had already made a representation against the incorrect mention of his birth date in the previous seniority list and that since he had received no reply, he took no further step when in the subsequent seniority list also the same error had crept in. 14. In or about 1983 Personnel Data Card (PDC) was issued by the respondents Bank in order to keep a record of the relevant particulars in respect of each Officer such as age, date of birth, qualifications salary, postings etc, as on December 31.1982. The Officers were instituted through the respective Branches/Administrative Offices to verify and correct the particulars therein mentioned and to return the same. In the PDC supplied to the appellant the date of birth was mentioned as January 17, 1930. while returning the PDC he put a circle around the date and by its side mentioned January 17, 1931 as the date of birth. Other correction(s) such as the one in the spelling of the surname was also similarly made (see Annexure "P" to the application for interim relief). while returning the PDC he put a circle around the date and by its side mentioned January 17, 1931 as the date of birth. Other correction(s) such as the one in the spelling of the surname was also similarly made (see Annexure "P" to the application for interim relief). The case of the respondent Bank is that the correction accordingly made by the appellant as in contravention of the instruction issued at the material time to the effect, inter alia, that no change in the date of birth as stated in the PDC should be effected. The appellant's case on the officer hand, is that no, such instruction held the field at the relevant time and that the PDC was, in fact, required to be verified and returned after correcting the mistakes if any, therein found. 15. The respondent Bank has in this connection produced an Annexure 'D' to the affidavit in opposition to the application for interim relief a copy of the letter dated November 19, 1984 addressed by the General Manager, Head Office, Personnel Department, to the Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone, Calcutta. The letter, inter alia, mentioned that on the basis of the information derived from PDCs received from the concerned Officers in respect of the period ended on December 31, 1982, the Inventory of all Officers had been suitably modified and updated and PDCs reflecting the position as on December 31, 1983 were sent for distribution, inter alia, amongst the Officers. The Branch Managers/Zonal Managers were directed to verify the PDCs and to return one of the copies dilly corrected to the Head Office, if the date of any Officer had been omitted and/or shown incorrectly. Paragraph 4 of the said letter was in• the following terms: "4. Please note that any correction/change as regards Date of Birth (Field No.7) will not be effected in the PDC unless the matter is taken up separately through the Zonal Office and administrative clearance is obtained from Head Office (Administration Division). The detai1ed instructions in this regard and for corrections to other Fields are given in the Annexure, While forwarding copies or PDCs to Branches/Departments please send sufficient number of copies of these instructions to avoid confusion. " Instruction No. lain the enclosed Annexure read as follows : DO NOT MAKE ANY CORRECTIONS HERE, "10. The detai1ed instructions in this regard and for corrections to other Fields are given in the Annexure, While forwarding copies or PDCs to Branches/Departments please send sufficient number of copies of these instructions to avoid confusion. " Instruction No. lain the enclosed Annexure read as follows : DO NOT MAKE ANY CORRECTIONS HERE, "10. Birth Date (Field No.7) If any change is desired a separate communication through proper channel must be addressed to Staff Administration Division, Head Office and a copy endorsed to HRD Division." 16. Since this communication issued in November 1984 governing the procedure to be followed in case of erroneous mention of date of birth in the PDC is the first of its type placed on record by the respondent Bank, it would not be unreasonable to assume that no such instructions were issued when PDCs were introduced for the first time in or about 1989. If, in fact, such instruction wert: also in vogue at that time, it is not understood why a copy thereof has not been placed on record. It is impossible, therefore, to hold that the appellant contravened any extant instructions when he encircled the date of birth mentioned in the PDC issued for the first time in or about 1983 and mentioned by it she what, according to him,. was the correct date of birth. 17. In the PDCs subsequently issued in or about 1984 and 1986, January 17, 1931 was mentioned as the birth date (see Annexure 'F' collectively to the application for interim relief). The appellant contends that this change must have been effected as a result of verification made by the concerned authorities upon the correction made by him in the PDC issued in 1983. The respondent Bank contends, on the other hand, that the said unauthorised correction made by the appellant in the said PDC resulted in the computer erroneously feeding January 17, 1931 as his date of birth when the subsequent PDCs were prepared and that "the mistake virtually occurred due to oversight while preparing the PDC for the year 1984 and as such the mistake cannot be considered as a decision of the Bank". 18. Between 1984 and 1986. January 17, 1931 came to be mentioned as the appellant's birth date in two more authentic documents, on February 10, 1984. 18. Between 1984 and 1986. January 17, 1931 came to be mentioned as the appellant's birth date in two more authentic documents, on February 10, 1984. the appellant was transferred from the Zonal Office to the Bowbazar Branch of the respondent Bank as the Deputy Chief Manager (Deposits). The letter of that date (Annexure 'H' to the application for interim relief) addressed to him giving intimation about the transfer bears an endorsement made by the Zonal Office and meant for the Chief Manager, Bowbazar Branch in which the service particulars including the date of birth aforesaid are mentioned. In the seniority list of Officers of the respondent Bank as on December 31,1984 (Annexure 'E' to the application for interim relief) also the same date of birth is mentioned. The rival case of the parties as regards the date of birth accordingly mentioned in those two documents is in respect of PDCs issued in or about 1984 and 1986 19. The chain of events, the series of documents issued from time to time and the surrounding circumstances as aforesaid, viewed against the background of the fact that the decision rejecting the appellant's representation dated May 26, 1981 in connection with the seniority list of Officers as on June 30, 1979 was not communicated to him till, March 22, 1988, could have legitimately left an impression on his mind meanwhile that in the records of the Bunk his birth date was duly recorded as January 17, 1931 after proper verification, 20 Upon receipt of the aforesaid letter dated March 22, 1988 (Annexure "I" to the application for interim relief), the appellant intimated the Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone, vide letter dated April 4. 1988 (Annexurer to the application for interim relief) inter alia, that under instructions of the employers, within nine months of the appointment; he had produced the provisional Matriculation (certificate for verification of the education qualification and date of birth and that the Matriculation Certificate (final) « was also subsequently submitted for further verification as soon as it was received and that since in the several official documents including the seniority lists issued by the respondent Bank thereafter, the correct date of 'birth was mentioned, his representation dated May 26, 1981 had "lost its purpose". In reply, the Chief Manager Bowbazar Branch, informed the appellant vide letter dated August 27, (Annexure 'K' to the application for interim relief) that the matter was reported to the Head Office for consideration and that in view of the fact that: (a) the appellant had himself declared January 17, 1930 as his birth date when he joined service, (b) he has not submitted the Matriculation Certificate(s) from the Calcutta University for verification and in support of the proof of age as alleged, (c) there was a discrepancy between the birth date as now claimed by him (January 17,1931) and that shown in the Matriculation Certificate according to which the correct date of birth would be February 1, !931 and (d) whether the date of birth was treated as January 11, 1931 or February 1, 1931, he would be a minor not having completed eighteen years of age when he applied for appointment in the Bank, the Head Office had conveyed that it 'was not possible to accede to his request for change of birth date, 21. The appellant thereafter submitted three more representations dated. September 17, 1988, February 15, 1989 and Apdll0, 1989 addressed to the General Manager (Personal Department), the Chairman and Managing Director and the Zonal Manager of the respondent Bank (Annexure 'L' collectively to the application for interim relief) reiterating all the material facts and requesting an appropriate action in the matter of correction of the service record by incorporating January 17, 1931 as his date of birth. In reply to the representations dated February 15, 1989 and April 10, 1989, the Chief Manager, Bowbazar Branch, vide letters dated March 27, 1989 and June 21,1989 (Annexures 'M' & 'N' to the application for interim relief) informed the appellant that the decision previously taken by the management stood and that his representations were rejected. 22. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that with respect to stand of the respondent Bank that if the appellant's correct date of birth is January 17, 1931, he would be a minor and therefore ineligible on the date of his appointment, the case. 22. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that with respect to stand of the respondent Bank that if the appellant's correct date of birth is January 17, 1931, he would be a minor and therefore ineligible on the date of his appointment, the case. of the appellant is that as many as 85 Officers employed by the respondent Bank between 1942 and 1973 including the present General Manager (Personnel) and the present Chief Manager, Bowbazar Branch of the respondent Bank were minors, that is, less than eighteen years of age, on their respective dates of appointment. He has annexed as Annexure 'P' to his application for interim relief a list of such Officers prepared on the basis of the seniority list as on December 31, 1984. He has therein given the necessary particulars such as the seniority number, name, date of birth, date of, joining and age on the date of joining in terms of years months and days. : According to the said list, the respective age of the present General Manager (Personnel), the present Chief Manager, Bowbazar Branch and one A. K. Seal, who was employed on the same day when the appellant was appointed, was 16 years 7 months, 16 days and 16 years 8 months 15 days on the date of appointment. In its affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent Bank has not met this case effectively. All that has been stated is that the said plea is an after though inasmuch as the appellant could not have any knowledge as under what age the others had joined at the material time". In the affidavit-in-reply the appellant has reiterated his case and averred that there was no reason for him to mention incorrect date of birth when he joined service since upon enquiries made he had come to know that at that time there was no minimum age prescribed for recruitment and that this was vindicated by the illustrative cases mentioned in Annexure 'P' abovementioned. . 23. One more document annexed by the appellant• remains to be referred to before turning to the judgment under appeal. . 23. One more document annexed by the appellant• remains to be referred to before turning to the judgment under appeal. Annexure 'Y' to the affidavit-in-reply is a letter dated June 1, 1988 addressed by the Chief Manager Bowbazar Branch to the Zonal Manager, 'Eastern Zone of the respondent Bank In the course of the said letter, which runs into four pages, the Chief Manager made a reference to the various representations made by the appellant and the Matriculation Certificates and other authoritative documents reflecting his date of birth and clarified that "he had' never made any request for changing his date of birth from 17-1-1930 to 17.1.1931" and that "on the contrary, he had established, by means of unquestionable evidence, that his date of birth remains recorded at Head Office as correctly (17.1.1931) .................." The letter concluded with the following observations : "After going through the papers pertaining to Sri Banerjee, as available on our records. including a copy of his letter dated 26.5.1981 (vide para 2 of his representation dated 4.4.1988 to you) to which a reply was now received from Head Office (vide : your 10M No. ZO: PERS : 3155 dated 22 3.88 to us), we can only infer that Sri Banerjee, at the time of his joining the Bank some forty years ago, had submitted an application for a job obviously with all necessary particulars, including his educational qualifications and date of birth and. in support of his statement as made in the application. had, as duty bound. furnished the Bank, at the earliest opportunity, with a Provisional Matriculation Certificate obtained hurriedly from the Calcutta University as because the final certificate would not be available as early as the recruitment rules demanded it. The said Provisional Certificate was duly verified at the Calcutta Office of the Bank, obviously under intimation to Head Office, Bombay, where his service records were also maintained. Even though we have-no access to Sri Banerjee's application for the post of a clerk, nor have any idea as to what he might have declared as his date of birth therein, after a reference to various statements, correspondence etc. Even though we have-no access to Sri Banerjee's application for the post of a clerk, nor have any idea as to what he might have declared as his date of birth therein, after a reference to various statements, correspondence etc. as discussed above, wherein Sri Banerjee's date of birth have been officially recorded as 17.1.1931 both by Head Office and your Office, such very action on the part of both the Offices only bespeak that whatsoever might have been declared by Sri Banerjee in his application for a job as his date of birth, the management had obviously set aside such declaration and accepted, as per rules, the date of birth as testified by his Matriculation Certificate, i.e. 17.1.l931. The present proposed decision to change his date of birth from 17 11931 to 17.1.1930 obviously admits that for the last forty years, the Bank had continued the mistake of noting his date of birth as 17.l.1931 on official records, but when we look for the source of such a prolonged and repeated mistake, we have nothing to lay hands on, other than his Matriculation Certificate accepted by the Bank at the time of his joining. Again, in order to rectify the said prolonged mistake now, we have nothing to reject as nullity, other than his school leaving certificate which in fulfilment of the required recruitment procedure of the Bank, was duly verified by the management and kept on his service records, both at Head office and Calcutta Office, since his date of joining. May we request your kind further instructions In the matter to us ?" 24. No concrete result having come forth despite persistent efforts in the direction of the resolution of dispute regarding the correct date of birth and' having come to know that he would be retired on and from January 31, 1990 by treating him as having been born on January 17, 1930 the appellant moved the Writ Petition out of which the present appeal arises on August 29, 1989 seeking a writ, order or direction against the respondent Bank, inter alia to alter his date of birth in the service records from January 17, 1930,to January 17, 1931 and to act on the basis of such recorded date of birth and not to superannuate him till he reached the age of sixty years on the basis of such recorded date. The respondent Bank contested the case by filing in affidavit-in-opposition. 25. The Writ Petition was rejected by the Trial Court by its order dated December 21, 1989, on the basis of the findings, inter alia that (a) the appellant at the time of joining duty pursuant to his recruitment had declared January 17, 1930 as his birth date and produced the Headmaster's Certificate for verification and this was evident from the standard format of respondent Bank duly filled in at that time, (b) during the long period of his service he did not take any step to get the birth date corrected, (c) the discrepancy in the declared age and the age reflected in the provisional Matriculation Certificate was not brought by him to the notice of the respondent Bank, (d) the respondent Bank had never accepted January 17, 1931 as the appellant's correct date of birth and (e) there was no substance in the allegation that the respondent Bank had illegally corrected the date of birth from January 17, 1931 to January 17, 1930. 26., In view of the statement of facts and the discussion on certain points in the foregoing part of the judgment it is clear that the findings above mentioned are unsustainable. 27. Having regard to the manner in which the format concerning the appellant was prepared and maintained and the shifting stand of the respondent Bank on the question whether it constituted the application seeking employment in which relevant particulars including date of, birth were stated by him or whether it was prepared on the basis of information furnished by him, it is impossible to reach an affirmative conclusion that the date of birth was therein mentioned on, the basis of a, declaration of the appellant. It is also impossible to arrive at the conclusion as found earlier that the Headmaster's Certificate mentioned the date of birth and that the entry relating to such date in the format was based on such evidence. It is also impossible to arrive at the conclusion as found earlier that the Headmaster's Certificate mentioned the date of birth and that the entry relating to such date in the format was based on such evidence. Even assuming without granting, however, that the date of birth as mentioned in the format owed its origin to a declaration made by- the appellant and/or contents of the Headmaster's Certificate, the important and relevant circumstance cannot be brushed aside or ignored that within eight months of his joining service he produced the provisional Matriculation Certificate mentioning the age in terms of years and months and that such Certificate was seen and verified by a senior and responsible Officer of the respondent Bank at the relevant time. As observed in the letter dated June 1, 1988, of the Chief Manager, Bowbazar Branch to the Zonal Manager Eastern 'Zone (Annexure 'Y' to the affidavit• in-reply), the production and verification of the provisional Matriculation Certificate fulfilled the requirement of the recruitment procedure of the respondent Bank. Its obligation and duty, therefore was to incorporate the correct date of birth thereafter in the' format and in the service record of the appellant on the basis of such Certificate. No explanation is coming forth or is discernible from the materials produced by the respondent Bank why this was not done. True, the appellant claims January 17, 1931 as his birth date, whereas according to the Matriculation Certificates, provisional and final, February 1, 1931 is the birth date. However, at no point of time was the appellant called upon to explain the discrepancy. Indeed, this fact came to be mentioned only in the letter dated August 27, 1988 (Annexure 'K' to the application' for interim relief), The said discrepancy has been adequately and duly explained by the appellant in his pleadings. That apart, according to the appellant's version, he was born about 13 days earlier and not at any point of time later than what is recorded in the 'said Certificates. In any case, the Certificates establish that the year of birth is 1931 and not 1930. All these glaring facts and circumstances can be ignored only at the peril of sacrificing truth and justice 28. In any case, the Certificates establish that the year of birth is 1931 and not 1930. All these glaring facts and circumstances can be ignored only at the peril of sacrificing truth and justice 28. It is not correct that the appellant failed to take any corrective step during the long period of his service or that the discrepancy in the declared age and the age as reflected in the provisional Matriculation Certificate was not brought by him to the notice of the respondent Bank or that January 17,1931 was never accepted as the correct date of birth by the respondent Bank. Ever since the discrepancy first came to the notice of the appellant when the seniority list as on June 30, 1979 was published, he made repeated attempts in the direction of bringing the said discrepancy to the notice of the management with a view to getting the appropriate relief. The fact that in several official documents issued by the Bank from time to time, January 17, 1931 was mentioned as the birth date shows, on the contrary, that then: is no consistency in the conduct of the respondent Bank in this regard. The appellant had every reason to carry the impression intermittently that the service record was duly corrected because of the contents of those documents. It is impossible to hold, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, therefore, that this is one of those run-of-the-mill cases where an employee spring a surprise at the last moment, that is, a few days before his superannuation, and seeks correction of his birth date. Vigilance and diligence on the part of the appellant in the matter of getting the date of birth corrected is writ large on the record. Whether the respondent Bank illegally corrected or erroneously recorded the date of birth is not a matter upon which the result of the case can depend. Since evidence in the shape of the Matriculation Certificate was duly produced; why the respondent Bank could not have done justice to him or justice should be denied to him in the course of this judicial proceeding? 29. And this brings us to the question as to the value to be attached to the Matriculation Certificate the genuineness of which is not in dispute, when the question of ascertaining the correct date of birth crops up. 30. 29. And this brings us to the question as to the value to be attached to the Matriculation Certificate the genuineness of which is not in dispute, when the question of ascertaining the correct date of birth crops up. 30. The law is well-settled that the determination of the question as to the correct age of a person would depend largely on documents and the nature of their authenticity. Amongst the documents which have been accepted in proof of age is the admission form to a school which is a part of the record maintained in the ordinary course of business and signed by the parents and counter-signed by the, Headmistress and which is otherwise authentic and unimpeachable. The reason for acceptance of such evidence is that there would be no dispute about the date of birth and there could he no motive on the part of the parents to give a false date of birth at the time of first admission to a school at a very early age. (See Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 SC 1057 ). The Matriculation Certificate recording the date of birth has also been regarded as authentic and accepted in support of proof of age, if the genuineness is not in doubt, where the question of correction of birth date in the service record of Government servants arose in cases before this Court (See Pramatha Nath Choudhury. The State of West Bengal & ors, 1981 (1) SLR 570) (DB) and Sisu Ranjan Dos v. Commissioner of Police (1979 (2) CLJ 428) (S8). In the former case it was observed that "when the original (Matriculation) Certificate is produced before us and no reply is possible in the facts of this case, we have no hesitation to accept He case of the petitioner-appellant that his date of birth as stated in the Matriculation Certificate must be accepted as correct." In the latter case it was observed that if the verification of date of birth is not made in terms of the procedure laid down in the relevant rules, the entry made in the service roll cannot be regarded as a valid declaration of the date of birth and it cannot be said that Such declaration would be binding on the person making it and that he would have no right to revise it subsequently for any reason whatever. It was further observed as follows: "A person's age is an objective fact, which can be determined only on evidence and such determination would affect his right to hold a post. Denning L.J. observed in Abbott v. Sullivan, (1952) All ER 226 at 234, that the right of a man to work is as important to him, if not more important than his rights of property. ** *** *** Where the birth of a Government employee has not been correctly recorded in accordance with law on the basis of a valid document simply because he wrote the date of his birth which had been wrongly recorded to his service book in his application for pensionary benefit, that would note stop him from challenging the validity or correctness of the same on the basis of an authentic document that the date of birth as recorded in the service book was wrong and incorrect." In an unreported judgment of this Bench rendered on November 27, 1988, in F.M.A T 1151 of 1989 (Indian Iron & Steel Company. Surendra Chandra Das & ors.) the decision of the trial Court holding that once the Matriculation Certificate was produced unless the contrary was proved, it was required to be accepted and acted upon was affirmed, It was held that unless there is cogent reason to reject such evidence, it should ordinarily be accepted as reflecting the correct state of affairs and recording the correct date of birth. 31. Following this long line of decisions, we would be justified in holding that in the present case the respondent Bank erred in not recording in the service record of the appellant the date of birth as evidenced by the Matriculation Certificate and/or in not correcting the entry relating to birth date in the said record so as to bring it in line with the date mentioned in such Certificate. However, in view of the fact that the consistent case of the appellant has been that his birth date is January 17, 1931, that is, thirteen days less than that what would be the birth date as per the Matriculation Certificate, the interest of justice would be served if the respondent Bank is ordered to accept the date specified by the appellant as his birth date. 32. 32. One of the points strenuously urged for our consideration was that if the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate is taken into consideration, then, the appellant was under-age on the date of his recruitment, because his age would be seventeen years and one month on that day and that he was, therefore, ineligible and that having taken advantage of his own wrong, he should be estopped from raising the dispute. This submission has no basis in facts or law. No rule of recruitment prevalent at the time of appointment of the appellant, prescribing any minimum age has been brought on record. That apart, Annexure 'P' to the application for interim relief is a long list of Officers, as many as 85 in number, who were, according to the record of the respondent Bank, recruited before they completed eighteen years of age. Two of the Officers mentioned in the said list are the present General Manager (Personnel) of the respondent Bank and the present Chief Manager of its Bowbazar Branch. Under such circumstances, in our opinion, the submission that the appellant was under age on the date (If hi" appointment and therefore not qualified to be appointed must be rejected. The question of estoppel, does not therefore, arise. 33. In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent Bank is directed to correct the service record of the appellant and to treat January 17. 1931 as his birth date. It is clarified that though, according to the Matriculation Certificate, February 1, 1931, is required to be treated as the correct date of birth, January 17, 1931 is directed to be treated as the birth date keeping in view the fact that the appellant himself has been consistently representing that he was born on that day. 34. Before parting with the case it might be mentioned that during the pendency of the appeal the respondent Bank was given an opportunity to reconsider the case of the appellant in view of the factual and legal position and to do justice to him. Counsel for the respondent Bank informs that the Bank has expressed its inability to reconsider the matter and that it seeks adjudication. We have acceded to the request in our humble way and done justice according to our light, 35. Counsel for the respondent Bank informs that the Bank has expressed its inability to reconsider the matter and that it seeks adjudication. We have acceded to the request in our humble way and done justice according to our light, 35. The appellant had to fight an arduous battle to get justice. This is a fit and proper case, therefore, where the respondent Bank should be directed to pay the costs of litigation to the appellant and also to bear its own cost throughout. The costs payable to the appellant are quantified at 200 Gms. The said amount shall be paid to the appellant along with the salary for the month of April 1990. An oral application made on behalf of the respondent Bank for staying the operation of this order is rejected. Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.: I agree. Appeal allowed with costs; direction given on the respondent.