SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 20. 3. 1985, passed by U. P. Public Services Tribunal (V ). Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow, respondent No. 1, whereby it allowed the claim of Baru Singh, respondent No. 2, holding that the date of birth of respondent No. 2 was 21. 10. 1925 instead of 17. 6. 1922 recorded in his Service Book. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that respondent No. 2 was initially appointed in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways as driver on 14. 11. 1952 on temporary basis. In the year 1955, respondent no. 2 was directed to present himself before the Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarnagar for obtaining the certificate of fitness, as required under Rule 10 of the Fundamental Rules. The Civil Surgeon examined respondent No. 2 and issued certificate on 18. 6. 1955 that according to his own statement, he was 32 and half years of age and by appearance he looks 33 years old. On the basis of the above certificate, the age of respondent No. 2 was mentioned as 17. 6. 1922 in his Service book. Respondent No. 2 also signed the Service Book. In the year 1957, the Medical Officer incharge District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar again examined respondent No. 2 and issued a certificate on 15. 1. 1957 that according to the statement of respondent No. 2, he was 36 years of age and by appearance he looks 36 years of age. The State Road Transport Corporation was constituted with effect from 1. 6. 1972 under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. All the employees of the U. P. Government Roadways were sent on deputation to the corporation. Respondent No. 2 also Joined the service of the petitioner. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 submitted an application on 6. 9. 1975 for correction of the date of birth before the petitioner. The representation was rejected. The petitioner informed respondent No. 2 that on attaining the age of superannuation, i. e. , 58 years on 16. 6. 1980, he would retire on reaching the age of superannuation. Respondent No. 2 raised an Industrial Dispute but the labour Court by an order dated 1. 12. 1982 took the view that he was a Government servant and, as such, the Labour Court has no Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. 6. 1980, he would retire on reaching the age of superannuation. Respondent No. 2 raised an Industrial Dispute but the labour Court by an order dated 1. 12. 1982 took the view that he was a Government servant and, as such, the Labour Court has no Jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. Respondent No. 2 thereafter submitted Claim Petition No. 152/1/5 of 1982 before the U. P. Public Services tribunal, respondent No. 1, challenging the action of the petitioner directing him to retire on 30. 6. 1980. The Tribunal allowed his claim petition by the impugned order dated 20. 3. 1985 holding that the date of birth of respondent No. 2 should be taken as 21. 10. 1925 and not 17. 6. 1922. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed this order in the present writ petition. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, respondent No. 2 had not submitted any High School Certificate indicating his date of birth as, it appears, he had not passed High School Examination. He also did not produce any School Leaving Certificate Indicating his date of birth. The petitioner relied upon the entry in the Service Book of respondent No. 2. It was based on the Medical Certificate issued by the civil Surgeon, Muzaffarnagar dated 18. 6. 1955. The certificate reads as under : "the candidates age according to his own statement is 32 and half years and by appearance 33 years. " This certificate has also been signed in English by Baru Singh. " in the year 1957, respondent No. 2 was again examined by Medical Officer Incharge of Civil hospital, Muzaffarnagar. This certificate further reads as under : "the candidates age according to his own statement is 36 years and by appearance 36 years. " this certificate has also been signed by respondent No. 2 in English. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated by respondent No. 2 that he could not understand the contents and meaning of the certificate. This was required to be examined by the Tribunal. He has not led any evidence on this point. Both the certificates contain his signature in English. He also does not deny that he appeared before the Civil Surgeon/medical Officer in respect of ascertainment of his age. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal has relied upon the Military Discharge Certificate in relation to his date of birth. He has not led any evidence on this point. Both the certificates contain his signature in English. He also does not deny that he appeared before the Civil Surgeon/medical Officer in respect of ascertainment of his age. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal has relied upon the Military Discharge Certificate in relation to his date of birth. Respondent No. 2 was employed as soldier in the Indian Army. He had joined the Indian Army in the year 1948 and was released in the year 1951 from the Army. He was given certificate of service on 12. 3. 1951/14. 5. 1951 wherein his age at the time of discharge was shown as 25 and half years. The Tribunal relying on this document held that the date of birth of respondent No. 2 should be fixed accordingly, i. e. , 21. 10. 1925. The age as mentioned in the certificate was not based on any school certificate. It can at the most be taken as a statement of respondent No. 2 before the officers concerned in the Army regarding his age. This statement made by respondent no. 2 to the Officer/persons giving the discharge certificate was not conclusive. The Tribunal has not assigned any reason as to why this certificate should be taken as binding upon the petitioner particularly when it did not record any finding as to the statement made by respondent no. 2 before the Civil Surgeon was incorrect. ( 7 ) IN Jiwan Kishore v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, AIR 1980 SC 1251 , it was held that if there is discrepancy in two records regarding date of birth of an employee, the age as assessed by the Medical Board appointed by the employer can be accepted. Respondent No. 2 further relied upon the Driving Certificate alleged to have been issued to him on 8. 1. 1953 indicating his date of birth as 24. 1. 1924. The date of birth as given in the certificate shall also be taken to be on the basis of statement made by respondent No, 2 before the Officer who granted the Motor Driving Certificate to him. Even if the date of birth as given in the certificate is accepted, it will be inconsistent with the age of the petitioner as mentioned in the Military discharge Certificate. Even if the date of birth as given in the certificate is accepted, it will be inconsistent with the age of the petitioner as mentioned in the Military discharge Certificate. The Tribunal has not given any reason why it relied on the Military discharge Certificate in preference to the Motor Driving Certificate which should also be taken on the basis of the statement made before the authority concerned. As the Tribunal failed to record any reason as to why the date of birth as given in Military Discharge Certificate should be given preference to the date of birth mentioned in Motor Driving Certificate, it would be appropriate that the matter be decided afresh keeping in view the above observations. ( 8 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20. 3. 1985 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 shall decide the claim petition afresh keeping in view the above observations and in accordance with law possibly within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ( 9 ) THE parties shall, however, bear their own costs. .