ORDER P.P. Gupta, J. - The petitioner Dr. Harihar Nath Baijal passed his High School Examination in the year 1946 and his date of birth in the High School Certificate was shown as 4th December, 1931. His actual date of birth was 4-12-1933, but due to inadvertence and oversight of the petitioner's guardian, his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 4-12-1931 when he was admitted to the school. This wrong date of birth was, therefore, reflected in his High School Certificate also. Sometime in the past, the petitioner came to know that his correct date of birth was 4th December, 1933. He immediately moved an application before the District Magistrate, Agra, who passed an order for investigation in the matter by the Registrar (Births and Deaths), Agra under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969. On the basis of the investigation it was found as a fact that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 4th December, 1933. Accordingly, a correction was made in the Births and Deaths Register maintained in Nagar Mahaplika, Agra and a fresh Certificate of Registration No. 1605 was issued on 23-11-1991 to the petitioner indicating his date of birth as 4-12-1933. A copy of the aforesaid Certificate dated 23-11-91 is attached as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 2. On receipt of the Certificate dated 23-11-91, the petitioner immediately made a representation to the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education. U.P., Allahabad (respondent No. 1) praying for correction of his date of birth as 4-12-1933 on the basis of the Certificate dated 23-11-91. A copy of the representation is attached as Anenxure 3 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 1, on the representation of the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 21-12-91 by which the petitioner's representation for correcting his date of birth in the High School Certificate was rejected. A copy of the impugned order is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents were heard at length and the record of the case was perused. The impugned order dated 21-12-91 passed by respondent No. I has been perused by me. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents were heard at length and the record of the case was perused. The impugned order dated 21-12-91 passed by respondent No. I has been perused by me. The representation of the petitioner appears to have been rejected by respondent No. 1 on two grounds : (i) that the representation is barred by limitation under clause (7) of Chapter 111 of Part 2 (Kha) of the Regulations of the Board; and (ii) that the date of birth of a Government servant cannot be changed in view of the Government Order No.41,'2;'-69 Niyukti-4 dated 18th May, 1974. 4. I have considered both the objections raised by the respondent No. 1. Clause 7 of Chapter III of Part 2 (Kha) of the Regulations framed by respondent No. I under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prescribes conditions only with respect to the correction of any clerical or accidental mistake committed due to oversight, inadvertence, negligence, etc. at the level of the Board or institution, last attended by a candidate. It prescribes that such a mistake can be corrected only if a representation against it is made within two years from the date of issue of the Certificate by respondent No. 1. In the instant case, the petitioner has not sought correction of any mistake occurred due to oversight, negligence or inadvertence etc. on the part of the respondent No. 1. He has sought correction on account of the inadvertent mistake on the part of his guardian who mentioned incorrect date of birth at the time of his admission. As such the representation of the petitioner cannot be said to be barred by limitation under Clause 7 of Chapter III of Part 2 (Kha) of the Regulations framed by the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board. The first objection regarding limitation has. therefore, no force and is overruled. 5. The other contention raised on behalf of the respondent is that in view of the Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules 1974 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1974), the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in his High School Certificate cannot be corrected. 5. The other contention raised on behalf of the respondent is that in view of the Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules 1974 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1974), the date of birth of the petitioner as entered in his High School Certificate cannot be corrected. It is needless to emphasise that these rules are applicable to the Government servants alone and the rules prescribe that in respect of the Government servants date of birth as recorded in their Service Books or in the High School Certificates where the said certificate is available cannot be changed and the date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate and the service record is deemed to be correct. The petitioner is admittedly not a Government servant. 6. The petitioner after completing his education was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Zoology in Agra College, Agra, affiliated to the Agra University under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 on 11-11-56 and at present he is the senior-most Lecturer in the Department and is acting as Head of the Department of Zoology from 21-5-1984. 7. The petitioner not being a Government servant cannot be said to be governed by these Rules. There Rules have nowhere been adopted under the Universities Statute. No Parallel rules have been shown to me under which it is laid down that the date of birth recorded in the service book or in the High School certificate where such a certificate is available will be final and cannot be changed. Hence, the second objection too is without any force. On discovering the mistake in his date of birth, the petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate. Agra under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Section 15 and Section 17 of the said Act are reproduced as under: "I5. Hence, the second objection too is without any force. On discovering the mistake in his date of birth, the petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate. Agra under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Section 15 and Section 17 of the said Act are reproduced as under: "I5. Correction or cancellation of entry in the register of births and deaths :- If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Registrar that any entry of a birth or death in any register kept by him under this Act is erroneous in form or substance, or has been fraudulently or improperly made, he may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government with respect to the conditions on which and the circumstances to which such entries may be corrected or cancelled, correct the error or cancel the entry by suitable entry in the margin, without any alteration of the original entry, and shall sign marginal entry and add thereto the date of correction or cancellation." 17(2) - All extracts given under this section shall be certified by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the State Government to give such extracts as provided in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose; of proving the birth or death to which the entry relates." 8. The District Magistrate, Agra under the authority of the Act, directed an investigation to be made. In pursuance thereof, investigation was made and the contention of the petitioner was found correct. Accordingly, correction was made in the Births and Deaths Register maintained in the Nagar Mahapalika. A fresh Certificate of Registration No. 1605 was issued to the petitioner on 23-11-1991 (Annexure 2) indicating the correct date of birth of the petitioner as 4-12-1993. The corrected certificate is, therefore to be accepted under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The respondent No. I, has, therefore, wrongly rejected the representation of the petitioner overlooking these facts of the provisions of the Act. The impugned order passed by the respondent No. I is, therefore, arbitrary and bad in law and must, therefore, be rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21-12-91 (Annexure 4) passed by respondent No. I is hereby quashed. The impugned order passed by the respondent No. I is, therefore, arbitrary and bad in law and must, therefore, be rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21-12-91 (Annexure 4) passed by respondent No. I is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure 3) afresh in the light of the Certificate No. 1605 dated 23-11-91 issued by the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra (Anenxure 2 to the writ petition) and the observations made above and make necessary correction in the date of birth of the petitioner in the High School Certificate within a month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. In the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.