JUDGMENT B. Dixit, J. - By this petition the petitioner has challenged the orders of Principal, G. S. V. M. Medical College, Kanpur dated 22-6-1989 and 21-8-1989 retiring petitioner from service retrospectively with effect from 31-3-1984. 2. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged in this case. The case being listed for admission, the parties agreed that this case can be disposed of at this stage. I, therefore, proceeded to hear the case on merits which is being decided at admission stage in accordance with the Rules of the Court. 3. In short, the essential facts are these. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Mali (Gardener) on 4-9-1957 at G.S.V.M. Medical College, by its Principal. The petitioner continued to work as such till 22-6-1989 when the Principal, the petitioner's appointing authority, retired him. The order dated 22-6-1989 retires petitioner retrospectively with effect from 31-3-1984. The retirement is on the ground of attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner challenged the order of retirement by filing a writ petition before this Court. In that writ petition the petitioner challenged the order of retirement for the reason that petitioner's service record discloses the date of birth of petitioner as 28-3-1934 and in normal course he was to retire in the year 1994 on attaining age of superannuation which is 60 years. The Division Bench of this Court while hearing the writ petition was not inclined to go into the question raised in writ petition at that stage and observed that petitioner may make a representation incorporating the allegations made in the writ petition and directed the Principal of the College to decide the representation. The writ petition was disposed of with said observations on 21-7-1989. The petitioner made representation on 27-7-1989 as per observation of this Court. The Principal by order dated 21-8-1989 disposed of representation of petitioner by holding the age of superannuation of petitioner as 31-3-1984. The petitioner has then filed present writ petition seeking quashing of both the orders passed by the Principal i. e., the order dated 22-6-1989 passed before making of representation retiring petitioner with effect from 31-3-1984 and the order dated 21-8-1989 passed on representation holding the date of superannuation of petitioner as 31-3-1984. 4. The first argument advanced by learned Counsel for petitioner is that his date of birth has been changed in the service book without assigning reasons. 4. The first argument advanced by learned Counsel for petitioner is that his date of birth has been changed in the service book without assigning reasons. I do not find any force in this argument. The initial order dated 22-6-1989 was passed by the Principal of the College which was not a reasoned order. However, after passing of that order the petitioner came up before this Court in writ petition. In the writ petition this Court observed that petitioner may make a representation incorporating the allegations made in writ petition which shall be decided by the competent authority. Admittedly, this representation was disposed of by the Principal, who was competent authority. The order dated 21-8-1989 passed on petitioner's representation is a reasoned order passed rafter re-considering the whole case. After passing of reasoned order subsequently on petitioner's representation, the argument that the competent authority did not pass any reasoned order on 22-6-1989 while retiring petitioner retrospectively with effect from 31-3-1984 has no force. 5. This takes me to the next question argued by Counsel for petitioner. He argued that the inquiry could not be held by the Principal in respect of correctness of date of birth recorded in petitioner's service book in view of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 as amended by Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Service (Determination of Date of Birth) (First Amendment) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred as Determination of Date of Birth Rules), which are applicable to petitioner's case. It was further argued on behalf of petitioner that even the reasons assigned for retiring petitioner from service with effect from 31-3-1984 are unsustainable under law. In short, the second argument advanced by Counsel for petitioner was that the Principal of College did not [have any power to enquire and consider any date of birth different from what is recorded in service book of petitioner for determining date of retirement of petitioner as well as reasons for retiring petitioner with effect from 31-3-1984 are bad in law. 6. The Counsel for respondent justified the impugned order. He argued that it was well within the scope of power of the Principal to determine the date of retirement of petitioner after making enquiry in respect of his date of birth. 6. The Counsel for respondent justified the impugned order. He argued that it was well within the scope of power of the Principal to determine the date of retirement of petitioner after making enquiry in respect of his date of birth. To justify his argument the learned Standing argued that the space in service book meant for date of birth was blank and the entry appears to have been made subsequently in connivance with some official of the office. In other words, the ground on which learned Standing Counsel tried to justify the power of Principal to go into the question of age of petitioner for determining the date of retirement of petitioner was that of interpolation in service book. 7. The learned Counsel for petitioner then in reply argued (that (he validity of impugned order can not be considered on the basis that there was interpolation in service record of petitioner as the petitioner was neither asked to submit his explanation to any interpolation in record nor he was asked by the Principal to explain in respect of alleged interpolation of date of birth in record. 8. The reasons which weight with Principal to determine petitioner's date of retirement as 31-3-1984 can be summarised as follows : (i) that the entry of date of birth of petitioner in service book was not made by a competent authority, (ii) that the petitioner was asked to submit the evidence of his birth certificate, either from Registrar Birth & Death or High School Certificate or he must appear before the Medical Board constituted by the Principal, but the petitioner neither submitted any evidence regarding his date of birth nor appeared before said Medical Board. (iii) that at the time of appointment of petitioner the Civil Surgeon, Kanpur vide Medical Certificate dated 29-3-1974 specified his age as 50 years. 9. Before considering arguments advanced by Counsel for parties it also requires mention that the hearing of this writ petition started on 16-5-1991. On 17-5-1991 after hearing the parties the Court directed learned Standing Counsel to produce the record of petitioner's service with Principal on 18-7-1991, when case was to be listed. The case was heard on 19-7-1991 when record was produced by learned Standing Counsel. On 17-5-1991 after hearing the parties the Court directed learned Standing Counsel to produce the record of petitioner's service with Principal on 18-7-1991, when case was to be listed. The case was heard on 19-7-1991 when record was produced by learned Standing Counsel. He advanced further arguments on the basis of original medical certificate of Civil Surgeon, Kanpur dated 29-3-1974 wherein the Civil Surgeon recorded that petitioner gave out his age as 40 years while he appeared to Civil Surgeon to be of 50 years. On query raised by Court on 19-7-1991 for applicability of particular rules or regulation requiring verification of date of birth by the Principal in service book, the learned Standing Counsel made request for adjournment for obtaining necessary instructions from the Principal in that respect. The case was adjourned for 29-7-1991 as part heard. On 29-7-1991 when the case was taken up, the learned Standing Counsel stated that he has neither received any instructions from the Principal nor the pairokar doing pairvi on behalf of Principal has turned up, who had also taken record on 19-7-1991. The learned Standing Counsel again prayed for adjournment of case for another one week, which request was turned down. However, it was made clear to him that if he obtains record within 3-4 days he may produce ;it as the judgment was being reserved. The learned Standing Counsel has not made record available till date. Under said circumstances I am proceeding to decide the Writ Petition without having service record of the petitioner before me. 10. First of all the question which requires consideration raised by petitioner is that once the date of birth stood recorded in the service book of petitioner as 28-3-1934 then Determination of Date of Birth Rules whether it cannot be changed. 10. First of all the question which requires consideration raised by petitioner is that once the date of birth stood recorded in the service book of petitioner as 28-3-1934 then Determination of Date of Birth Rules whether it cannot be changed. Rule 2 of the said Rules reads as follow :- "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 of 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 of 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." It is clear from the aforesaid Rule 2 that no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of date of birth or age so made in any circumstance, which stands recorded^ in the service book. There is a legal fiction that date recorded in the service book at the time of entry into the service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age for all purposes which includes age of superannuation etc. This shows that a finality is being attached by a legal fiction to the date of birth or age recorded in the service book of an employee and as no application or representation can be entertained in view of Rule 2 of Determination of Date of Birth Rules, no enquiry can also be held in this respect for determining date of retirement on attaining age of superannuation on the basis of any other date of birth or age considered to be correct age of petitioner. It is not in respect of employee only, but the competent authority is equally bound by such entry of date of birth or age. The very purpose of this Rule is that the date of birth or age entered in the service record of an employee be not open for question. It is not in respect of employee only, but the competent authority is equally bound by such entry of date of birth or age. The very purpose of this Rule is that the date of birth or age entered in the service record of an employee be not open for question. The purpose of framing this Rule will be frustrated if the competent authority is allowed to question the date of birth recorded in the service book of the employee. The very purpose of this provision is that the date of birth or age of an employee be not made subject matter of any inquiry for substituting some other date of birth or age, which may be considered to be correct date of birth or age at such inquiry. The very purpose of attaching the finality to the entry of date of birth or age in service book will be frustrated if competent authority is allowed to examine the correctness of date of birth or age centered in service record on his own accord, where no application or representation can be moved by employee. The Rule clearly prohibits by legal fiction any such proceeding or inquiry by the competent authority. The competent authority has to accept the date of birth recorded in the service book of petitioner as correct date of birth in view of Rule 2 of Determination of Date of Birth Rules. 11. In present case, the Principal has not recorded finding about exact date of birth of petitioner. He has determined the date of retirement of petitioner as 31-3-1984 replying upon the medicial certificate dated 29-3-1974 which shows that petitioner appeared to be of 50 years to Civil Surgeon 'concerned when his medical examination took place at the time of confirmation on permanent basis. The date of retirement of petitioner has been determined considering that it was within the power of Principal to determine petitioner's date of birth or age despite the date of birth being recorded in service book. The date of birth shown in the service book is 28-3-1934. Under Rule 2 of the Determination of Date of Birth Rules such date alone has to be taken to be the date for computing date of retirement of petitioner on attaining age of superannuation and no other date could be determined by Principal to who is competent authority for any valid reason permissible under law. 12. Under Rule 2 of the Determination of Date of Birth Rules such date alone has to be taken to be the date for computing date of retirement of petitioner on attaining age of superannuation and no other date could be determined by Principal to who is competent authority for any valid reason permissible under law. 12. To overcome the finality attached to the entry of date of birth under Rule 2 of the Determination of Date of Birth Rules, the Principal in this writ petition has raised the plea that the entry does not fulfill the requirement of Rule 2 and, therefore, no finality can be attached to such entry of date of birth of petitioner and it was open to the Principal to dertermine date of retirement of petitioner. He has alleged in the counter-affidavit that the entry of date of birth of petitioner has been subsequently interpolated and, therefore, it cannot be deemed to be entry which respondent No. 1 was required to accept under Rule 2. 13. The plea of the Principal that the entry did not have binding effect on respondent No. 1 due to interpolation is a new plea taken in the counter-affidavit for the first time. The plea is that the space about petitioner's date of birth in service book was blank and the date of birth was written subsequently meaning thereby that interpolation in service book in respect of date of birth was made. The respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to reply upon such a new plea for the first time in writ petition by raising it in counter-affidavit The respondent No. 1 can support the impugned order in this petition only for the reasons mentioned therein. As no such plea was taken up earlier and when the impugned order does not contain any such reason for not accepting the date of birth written in the service book, it is not open for respondent No. 1 to defend the impugned order on any such plea or reason. As no such plea was taken up earlier and when the impugned order does not contain any such reason for not accepting the date of birth written in the service book, it is not open for respondent No. 1 to defend the impugned order on any such plea or reason. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohinder Singh Gil v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 , at page 858 that : "When statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and can not be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order had in the beginning may, by time it comes to the Court on account of challenge get validated by additional grounds later brought out". This preposition of law is equally applicable in respect of present case is which competent authority, who is required to maintain service book of petitioner, has passed a reasoned order for not accepting the date of birth given in the service book. He determined the date of retirement of petitioner for reasons given in order and now he has wrongly considered that he could justify the impugned order for reasons not assigned by the competent authority. In view of said decision of Supreme Court of India it is not open to justify validity of the order for the new reason assigned in counter-affidavit that the date of birth of petitioner written in service book was interpolated and, therefore, the Principal, as Competent Authority, could not justify for said new reason. 14. There is another reason due to which the respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to take this plea of interpolation of date of birth for the first time in this writ petition. The existence of interpolation in respect of date of birth recorded in the service book is a question of fact. This question having not been decided by competent authority, cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the Principal wanted to reply on such question of fact then it was incumbent on him to record a finding in impugned order that the entry of date of birth was interpolated. If the Principal wanted to reply on such question of fact then it was incumbent on him to record a finding in impugned order that the entry of date of birth was interpolated. He should have mentioned this factual matter in the notice dated 28-7-1989, which he did not do. Had it been mentioned in notice to petitioner, the petitioner could have met this factual aspect in his reply. Had the question been raised at appropriate stage then the Principal could have recorded necessary finding in this respect. In absence of any such a plea and finding in impugned order, the Principal cannot be allowed to rely on such a plea in present petition. For this reason also the plea that the date of birth in service book of petitioner was interpolated cannot be allowed to be raised by the Principal of College before this Court. The validity of order can neither be considered nor determined on the basis of interpolation of entry of date of birth in service book of petitioner. 15. In this case on 17-5-1991 after hearing the Counsel for parties it was considered necessary to summon the record and direction was given to the learned Standing Counsel to produce the same on 19th July, 1991. The case was taken up on 19th July, 1991 and the record was produced before the Court. On perusal of the record it transpired that right from the year 1957 when the petitioner was appointed, the Principal of the College was making annual entries in the service book in respect of petitioner's working. This shows that the service book of petitioner was being perused by the Principal at least at the time of making of annual entry or remark. Had the entry of date of birth of petitioner been not in the service book and had that space been blank then there is no reason to consider that the Principal would not have taken steps to have the entry made in respect of date of birth in petitioner's service book. Had the entry of date of birth of petitioner been not in the service book and had that space been blank then there is no reason to consider that the Principal would not have taken steps to have the entry made in respect of date of birth in petitioner's service book. I am not inclined to believe that the Principal of the College omitted to mark absence of entry in respect of date of birth of petitioner for all these years from 1957 to 1989, when it is said to have come to his notice that the date of birth of the petitioner is not verified or it was blank in the service book. 16. The Principal also tried to justify retirement of petitioner on another ground in counter-affidavit. It was claimed that the entry of date of birth of petitioner was not verified. When learned Standing Counsel pressed this plea in argument. I asked him to show the Rule or Regulation or Order under which verification of the entry of date of birth by the Principal was necessary. On this the learned Standing Counsel prayed for adjournment of the case for necessary instructions from the Principal and therefore, the case was adjourned on 19-7-1991 to 29th July, 1991. On 29th July, 1991 the learned Standing Counsel could not show any Rule, Regulation or Order by which he could justify that entry of date of birth in service book of petitioner required verification. He showed his inability to place said Rule or Regulation or Order as the pairokar of the case doing pairvi for Principal did not turn-up. The learned Standing Counsel wanted case to be adjourned on 29th July, 1991 for obtaining necessary instructions. He could not assign any reason as to why Principal could not send necessary instructions by said date nor he could assign any valid reason for such an adjournment and, therefore, there remained no option for me then to proceed with the case. The learned Standing Counsel could not place any Rule or Regulation or Order before Court under which the verification of the date of birth in petitioner's service book could be considered necessary by the Principal. The learned Standing Counsel could not place any Rule or Regulation or Order before Court under which the verification of the date of birth in petitioner's service book could be considered necessary by the Principal. In view of this fact, even if the case is examined on merits then the plea in the counter-affidavit that the date of birth of petitioner entered in the service book was not verified by the Principal of the College has no substance. In absence of any Rule or Regulation or Order it has to be taken that the verification of entries of date of birth was not necessary and the entry of date of birth of petitioner has been made in accordance with law. 17. There is another reason for which the order is invalid. The petitioner has been retired on 22-6-1989 retrospectively with effect from 31-3-1984. There is neither any rule nor any law which permits any retrospective retirement. The petitioner was allowed to work till 22-6-1989. The petitioner worked till 22nd of June, 1989 without any objection being raised by competent authority. Once the petitioner was allowed be work till June, 1989 for more than 5 years after 31-3-1984 and the Principal of the College had been awarding entries even after 1984 in the service book of the petitioner, then it was not open to the Principal of the College to retire the petitioner with retrespective effect. There being no power in Principal to retire petitioner with retrospective effect, the retrospective retirement on 22-6-1989 with effect from 31-3-1984 is invalid and bad in law. 18. Before parting with the case I would like to point out that the Principal of College has determined date of retirement of petitioner merely on the basis of a Medical Certificate dated 29-3-1974 issued by a Doctor at the time of Medical Examination of petitioner alleging him to be about 50 years of age. This certificate was not been issued in respect of determination of date of birth of petitioner but was for physical fitness of the petitioner at the time of confirmation. The Chief Medical Officer has no where stated in this certificate about particular date as date of birth of petitioner but has just observed on the basis of physical appearance of the petitioner that he was about 50 years of age. The Chief Medical Officer has no where stated in this certificate about particular date as date of birth of petitioner but has just observed on the basis of physical appearance of the petitioner that he was about 50 years of age. The data of retirement of petitioner cannot be determined on the basis of this certificate. It could not be taken as proof of petitioner's age. The certificate was issued by doctor at the time of confirmation of service of petitioner to check-up physical fitness for the work he was required to do on confirmation. It was not a medical examination for determination of age of petitioner. The competent authority could not consider the petitioner to be of 50 years of age in 1974 on the basis of medical certificate which was in respect of petitioner's fitness to the job and not for ascertaining his age in any scientific manner. Be it as it is, in present case, it is not the date of birth which is determined by the impugned order but it is the date of retirement merely on the basis of medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer. The law does not contemplate determination of date of retirement on such vague certificate of age on mere appearance and in view of this fact also the impugned order is invalid. 19. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22-6-1989 and order dated 21-8-1989 passed by the Principal, G. S. V. M. Medical College, Kanpur are quashed and the Principal is further directed to re-instate the petitioner in service as Mali (Gardner) and allow him to continue in service treating his date of birth as 31st March, 1934. The petitioner will be entitled for salary for the period he has been out of employment due to impugned order and the Principal will treat him to be an employee in service even after 22-6-1989. The petitioner will be entitled to ait the benefits which would have accrued to him had he not been retired under impugned order. 20. The petitioner is entitled for cost from respondent No. 1.