Judgment : G. P. Mathur, J. 1. THIS Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-5-1993 of a learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by Shitla Prasad respondent no. 1 has been allowed and it has been directed that he should be permitted to continue in service on the footing that his date of birth is 25-7-1936. 2. SHITLA Prasad filed writ petition on the ground inter-alia that he was appointed as Driver by the Executive Engineer Rihand Hydel Civil Division Mirzapur on 7-3 -1963 and was confirmed from 1-4-1976 that his date of birth is 25-7- 1936; that in the medical certificate of fitness dated 25-7-1974 his age was mentioned as 38 years; that the Chief Medical Officer had submitted a report showing that his date of birth is 25-7-1936 and that without any notice or opportunity of hearing an order was issued on 24-7-90 mentioning that he should have retired on 30-1-1990 in accordance with his age mentioned in his service book but he had been allowed to continue in service by over sight and therefore, he would be superannuated on 31-7-1990. It was accordingly prayed that the aforesaid retirement notice be quashed. It was accordingly prayed that the aforesaid retirement notice be quashed. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Executive Engineer of U.P.S.E.B. on the ground inter-alia that in the service book of the petitioner, which was prepared in 1964, his date of birth was recorded as 5-1-1932 and the same was certified by the then Executive Engineer on 7-7-1964 and was also countersigned by the petitioner himself, that the Executive Engineer sent a letter on 3-7-1973 asking the petitioner to submit a fitness certificate as required by Fundamental Rule-10 that in the end of the fitness certificate a sentence was written that the petitioner appeared to be of 38 years of age, that the certificate of fitness was submitted in 1974 which was incorporated in the service book and was also signed by the then Executive Engineer on 2-5-1975 that on the basis of the aforesaid fitness certificate the entry regarding date of birth of the petitioner was scored of and in its place 25-7-1936 was written by Madan Mohan Srivastava, dealing Assistant on 18-8-1987 that no report regarding the age of the petitioner was asked from the C. M.O. nor any test was preformed by him to ascertain the petitioner's age; that the petitioner got his date of birth noted as 25-7-1936 in the year 1987 when he was due to retire in January, 1990, that under the Rules, an Officer below the rank of Chief Engineer is not authorised to make correction in the entry regarding date of birth of an employee in the service book and that the correction made is illegal and without any authority of law. Before examining the contention of the parties, it will be convenient to notice the relevant rules regarding the employees of U.P.S.E.B. Chapter-11 deals with the record of service and Rule 27 to 30 are reproduced below : Service Book to be opened on first appointment. 27. The Service Book will be opened for every employee on his first appointment, and entries such as full name, father's name, date of birth, educational qualifications etc. filled up. Date of birth to be supported by documentary Evidence. 28. The date of birth will be verified with reference to documentary evidence. The documents to be relied upon may be one of the following. filled up. Date of birth to be supported by documentary Evidence. 28. The date of birth will be verified with reference to documentary evidence. The documents to be relied upon may be one of the following. (i) In the case of candidates who have passed High School Examination of the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education or an examination recognised as equivalent thereto, the date of birth as recorded in the certificate of having passed that examination will be taken to be the date of birth. (ii) For those who have not passed the High School or equivalent examination but have attended school, the evidence of age will be the last school leaving certificate. (iii) For others the evidence of age will be the birth certificate issued by a local body or any other authority required to maintain - such records. Determination of date of birth in certain cases. 29. In the absence of any of the records specified in the preceding paragraph, age will be determined as below- (a) When only the year of birth of an employee is known but, not the month and date, the first July of the year will be taken as the date of birth. (b) When the year and month of birth are known, but not the exact date, sixteenth of the month will be taken as the date of birth. (c) If the date of birth cannot be ascertained, a certificate from the Medical Officer approved by the Board stating the approximate year of birth may be accepted for fixing the date of birth of the candidate. Date of birth may not be altered. 30 (1) After considering the evidence produced, the head of office will accept or determine the date of birth and enter it in the Service Book under his attestation, citing the evidence relied upon. Date of birth may not be altered. 30 (1) After considering the evidence produced, the head of office will accept or determine the date of birth and enter it in the Service Book under his attestation, citing the evidence relied upon. (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rules or orders, the date of birth of an officer or employee of the Board as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination or when an employee has not passed any such examination, the date of birth or the age recorded in his Service Book at the time of his entry into Board's service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever." 3. A perusal of the rules would show that at the time of initial appointment Service Book of every employee has to be opened which has to contain an entry regarding his date of birth. Rule-28 shows that date of birth has to be recorded on the basis of documentary evidence enumerated therein. Rule 29 (c) shows that if the date of birth cannot be ascertained on account of an availability of the documents enumerated in Rule-28, then a certificate from the Medical Officer approved by the Board stating the approximate year of birth may be accepted for fixing date of birth of the employee. Rule 30 (1) lays down that entry regarding date of birth would be made in the service book after considering the entire evidence produced before Head of the Office A combined reading of Rule-27 to 30 would show that the report from Medical Officer regarding the age of an employee in the event of non-availability of the documents enumerated in Rule-28 has to be obtained only at the time of making the initial entry regarding his date of birth in the service book. Sub-rule (2) of Rule-30 provides that the date of birth of an employee as recorded in the High School certificate or when an employee has not passed any such examination, the date of birth or age as recorded in the service book at the time of his entry into Board's service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age. The sub-rule also puts an embergo upon making any correction in such date of birth or age in any circumstance. Sub-rule (2) of Rule-30 is couched in the same language as rule-2 of U. P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of date of Birth) Rules, 1974. A Division Bench in Brahma Dev Pandey v. D.M., 1993 (3) UP LB EC 1261' has held that finality attaches to date of birth as recorded in the service book and the same cannot be disturbed on a subsequent plea by the employee that it has been wrongly recorded. We are also of the opinion that in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule-30 the entry regarding date of birth of an employee in the service book is final and shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth and no representation can be entertained for correcting the same. We may clarify here that we may not be understood to be laying that under no circumstance the entry in service book can be corrected. If there is a Clerical mistake in recording the date of birth which is apparent from the documents produced at the time of making of the initial entry, the same may be corrected.- 4. IT is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded in the service book and when he came to know about the alleged mistake he made an application for correction thereof and some officer of UPSEB, who was legally authorised to do so, after holding an enquiry and taking evidence permissible under law, made necessary corrections in accordance with the Service Rules. On the contrary the case set up in the writ petition is that his date of birth is 25-7-1936 and it is so recorded in the service book but the authorities had wrongly served a retirement notice treating it to be 5-1-1932. We have examined the original Service Book of the petitioner which was produced before us by learned counsel for the appellant which shows that the date of birth of the petitioner was written as 5-1-1932 and it was signed by the petitioner himself and Sri Parmanand Gupta, Executive Engineer, Rihand, Hydel Civil Division, Mirzapur on 17-7-1964. We have examined the original Service Book of the petitioner which was produced before us by learned counsel for the appellant which shows that the date of birth of the petitioner was written as 5-1-1932 and it was signed by the petitioner himself and Sri Parmanand Gupta, Executive Engineer, Rihand, Hydel Civil Division, Mirzapur on 17-7-1964. The Executive Engineer wrote a letter to the C.M.O., Allahabad on 30-7-1973 requesting him to examine the petitioner as his medical fitness certificate was not on record. Thereafter, the Deputy C.M.O. examined the petitioner on 25-7-74 and issued a medical fitness certificate which is exactly in the form prescribed under rule-10 of the Fundamental Rules. Since this certificate has some bearing on the facts of the present case, the same is being reproduced below : CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS FOR GOVT. SERVICE (See Rule 10 of Fundamental Rules) I do hereby certify that I have examined Sri Sheetla Prasad a candidate for appointment in Hydel department and can not discover that he has any disease communicable or otherwise, constitutional weakness or bodily infirmity except nil. I do not consider this a disqualification for employment in the Hydel department. The candidate's age according to his own statement is 38 years and by appearance is 38 years." 5. AFTER the medical fitness certificate had been submitted, there is another entry in the service book wherein petitioner's date of birth is recorded as 5-1-1932 and the entry has been signed by the petitioner himself and also by Shri V, N. Mathur, Executive Engineer, Electricity Civil Construction Division UPSEB, Allahabad on 15-7-1975. It is noteworthy that though the medical fitness certificate dated 25-7-74 had been obtained and had been made part of the record of service book but the petitioner made no grievance regarding his age when second entry was counter signed by the Executive Engineer in July, 1975. There is no application or representation by the petitioner for correcting his date of birth. However, it is on 18-8-87 that the entry regarding date of birth of the petitioner as 5-1-1932 was scored, out by red ink and 25-7-1936 was written in its place and a note was made "As per Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad certificate" and was also signed by the Executive Engineer. 6. However, it is on 18-8-87 that the entry regarding date of birth of the petitioner as 5-1-1932 was scored, out by red ink and 25-7-1936 was written in its place and a note was made "As per Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad certificate" and was also signed by the Executive Engineer. 6. IN our opinion, the medical fitness certificate dated 25-7-1974 could not be treated as an opinion of the doctor regarding the age of the petitioner, The certificate has been given in the proforma prescribed under Fundamental Rule-10. The doctor had examined the petitioner in order to ascertain as to whether he suffered from any communicable disease or otherwise and whether he had any constitutional weekness or bodily infirmity which would constitute a disqualification for employment in the Hydel department. The doctor was not asked or required to give an opinion regarding the age of the petitioner. There are well known scientific methods to ascertain the age of a person and ossification of bones gives a fairly accurate idea regarding the age. However, for this purpose X-ray examination has to be performed. IN case the doctor had been asked to give his opinion regarding the age of the petitioner he would have performed necessary tests including X-ray examination etc. and would have also given the scientific data on the basis of which he would have formed his opinion about the age. The doctor while giving opinion about the age of a person is in 'the nature of an expert and in absence of necessary scientific date, his opinion would carry little weight in view of section 45 of Evidence Act. We are clearly of the opinion that the medical fitness certificate dated 25-7-1974 could not at all be treated as an opinion of the doctor regarding the age of the petitioner. As a consequence, the said document could not be used for the purpose of determining his age. Apart from the view which we have taken that the medical fitness certificate is not an evidence regarding age of the petitioner, we are also of the view that the exercise regarding ascertaining the age of the petitioner in absence of High School or a birth certificate issued by the local authority, had to be done at the time of first appointment while making the entry regarding his date of birth in the service book. It was certainly open for the petitioner to have obtained a certificate from the Medical Officer approved by the Board regarding his age. However, this was not done and no certificate of Medical Officer regarding his age was obtained. The petitioner accepted that his date of birth was 5-1-1932 when entry regarding the same was made in the year 1964 in his service book as the said entry was signed by him and also by the Executive Engineer. Again he made no objection regarding his date of birth when the same entry was repeated in the year 1975 and was signed by him and the Executive Engineer. In these circumstances, the correction made in the service book by scoring out the date "5-1-1932" and writing "25-7-1936 on 18-8-1987 by the Executive Engineer is clearly illegal. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 has failed to show any provision which authorised or empowered the Executive Engineer to make correction or alteration in the service book. In view of sub-rule (2) of rule 30 the correction made in the date of birth is not only illegal but is also prohibited. The altered entry is, therefore, non-est in the eyes of law and cannot be taken notice of for any purpose whatsoever. 7. LEARNED Single Judge has given three reasons for allowing the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1. The first reason is that the entry showing date of birth of the petitioner as 25-7-1936 is continuing in the service book continuously since 1975 and the respondent to the writ petition (appellants in the present- appeal) made no objection thereto. The learned Single Judge has misread the record while observing that the entry is continuing since 1975. It is mentioned in paras 10, II, 12 and 15 of the counter affidavit that the correction was made on 18-8-1987 and this allegation is not controverted in the rejoinder affidavit, the writ petitioner has himself mentioned that on 18-8-87 his date of birth was accepted as 25-7-1936. Therefore, altered entry is not continuing since 1975 but was made about two years prior to attaining the age of superannuation. The second reason given by learned Single Judge is that retiring the petitioner on the basis of an original entry without giving him opportunity of hearing is against the principle of natural justice. Therefore, altered entry is not continuing since 1975 but was made about two years prior to attaining the age of superannuation. The second reason given by learned Single Judge is that retiring the petitioner on the basis of an original entry without giving him opportunity of hearing is against the principle of natural justice. The third reason is that once an entry regarding date of birth has been corrected in the service book in accordance with rules, then the same cannot be ignored without giving opportunity to the employee concerned., We have shown above that entry regarding the date of birth had been changed without any authority of law. In fact the Executive Engineer who made alteration in 1987 had no such authority under the relevant rules. That apart, the medical fitness certificate was not an opinion of the doctor regarding the age of the employee and could not at all form the basis for changing the date of birth. The rules permit recording of date of birth on the basis of a medical certificate by a doctor only at the time of making first entry in the service book and such a certificate cannot be used at a later date for altering or changing the entry made at the initial stage. Sub- rule (2) of rule 30 clearly put an embargo upon making any change or correction in -the date of birth or age which has been once recorded in the service book. Therefore, the entry "25-7-1936" made in the service book in the year 1987 was not only illegal but was also without any authority of law and was non-est. Such an entry could not be taken notice of and had to be ignored. It is not a case where a legally permissible change has been affected. In these circumstances, the employees were fully within their right to ignore the altered entry and proceed on the basis of entry originally made In the service book and the question of giving any notice or opportunity of hearing could not arise. Such a notice would have been necessary if the alteration in the date of birth was permissible in law and the said alteration had been done in accordance with any prescribed procedure. Such a notice would have been necessary if the alteration in the date of birth was permissible in law and the said alteration had been done in accordance with any prescribed procedure. However, since in the present case, the law completely prohibits any alteration the altered entry was liable to be ignored and no prior notice was required to be given to the employee concerned. 8. SHRI Verma for the employee has placed reliance upon Roop Singh v. State, 1987 UP LB EC-607 and Onkar Nath Srivastava v. State, 1990 AWC 1079 in support of his submission that the retirement notice is illegal. In the first case the employee's date of birth was recorded as 10th November, 1929 in the High School Certificate which class he had passed in 1947 prior to entering into service, but he was sought to be retired on the basis of entry made in the service book which was 20th March, 1927. In view of rule-2 of U. P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 as the employee had passed High School examination prior to entering into service, his date of birth its recorded in the High School certificate had to be accepted as his correct date of birth and the writ petition was allowed on its basis. Similarly in the latter case the employee had not passed High School examination when he joined service and his date of birth was noted as 5-1-1929 in the service book. He passed High School subsequently and in the High School certificate his date of birth was noted as 5-1-1926 on the basis of which he was sought to be retired. The petition was allowed as in view of 1974 Rules, if an employee has passed High School examination after joining the service, the date of birth as recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into government service shall be treated to be his correct date of birth. Therefore, none of these two cases help respondent no. 1. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a decision by a learned Single Judge given in writ petition no. 7600/90 Shesh Nath v. Executive Engineer decided on 10-9-1990 which also related to an employee of UPSEB who was governed by the same service rules. Therefore, none of these two cases help respondent no. 1. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a decision by a learned Single Judge given in writ petition no. 7600/90 Shesh Nath v. Executive Engineer decided on 10-9-1990 which also related to an employee of UPSEB who was governed by the same service rules. With profound respects to the learned Single Judge we are unable to concur with the view taken by him as he has directed that the controversy about the employee's date of birth be settled after ignoring Service Rules. Learned Single Judge has not held that the Rules are ultra-vires and in these circumstances, we fail to understand as to how the Rules can be ignored while deciding the controversy about the date of birth of an employee. For the reasons mentioned above, the present Special Appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 4-5-1993 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by Shitla Prasad respondent no. 1 is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.