JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—These two writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. By the writ petition No. 58139/06 (hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition), the petitioner Dharmendra Singh has prayed for quashing the order dated 16/19th October, 2002 passed by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, rejecting the representation of the petitioner praying for correction of date of birth in the High School Certificate issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. 3. In writ petition No. 20298/07, the petitioner, Dharmendra Singh, has prayed for quashing the order dated 10th April, 2007 passed by the Commandant, 42nd Battalion, P.A.C., Allahabad, by which, the appointment order of the petitioner dated 2.10.1998 has been cancelled and the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that petitioner has obtained employment by filing forged certificate of the High School mentioning an incorrect date of birth. 4. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding both the writ petitions are : the petitioner has passed the High School Examination from U.P. Board of High School Education U.P. Allahabad in the year 1994 as a regular student from Kunwar Singh Inter College, Ballia. The petitioner thereafter passed the Intermediate Examination in the year 1996 from the same college. An advertisement dated 11th June, 1998 was published inviting the application for recruitment of Constable in P.A.C. The advertisement required that age of the candidate on 1.1.1998 should be minimum 18 years and maximum 20 years meaning thereby, the candidate must not have been born prior to 2.1.1978 and after 1.1.1980. The petitioner made an application in response to above advertisement claiming his date of birth 18th June, 1979. The petitioner filed High School Certificate before the employer being Certificate SI. No. 386043/82/002/0005 showing the date of birth 18th June, 1979. The petitioner was selected as Constable on 2.10.1998. A letter dated 27.12.1999 was issued by the Commandant P.A.C. to the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education for verification of date of birth 18th June, 1979 as disclosed by the petitioner in his certificate filed before the Commandant. The Board by letter dated 1.1.2000 informed to the Commandant that correct date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the original record of Board of High School and Intermediate Examination is 4.10.1980. The Board by letter dated 1.1.2000 informed to the Commandant that correct date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the original record of Board of High School and Intermediate Examination is 4.10.1980. The Assistant Commandant after enquiry, submitted a report to the Commandant that petitioner for taking benefit of the advertisement has submitted forged certificate for employment against whom criminal case be registered and legal proceeding be undertaken. A notice was issued to the petitioner asking to show-cause why his services be not terminated. An application was filed by the petitioner before the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education on 24th August, 2000 praying for correcting of date of birth from 4.10.1980 to 18th June, 1979 in the Board’s record. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 39249/2000 in this Court claiming that his date of birth is 18th June, 1979 whereas in the cross list of the Board it is shown as 4.10.1980. The petitioner also filed school leaving certificate in the writ petition claiming that his date of birth recorded therein is 18th June, 1979. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 1.9.2000, relevant part of which is as under : “Considering these circumstances it appears prima facie that contention of the petitioner is correct. However, final findings in this regard will have to be recorded by Secretary of Board after considering evidence given by the petitioner in this behalf and after verification of the evidence from the concerned authorities or school. In the circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner will make representation to the Secretary within three weeks from today annexing thereto copy of all the documents upon which the petitioner relies in support of his claim. Upon receiving the said representation the Secretary will decide the matter within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Secretary. Till the decision is given by the Secretary in this matter, the petitioner’s date of birth will be treated to be 18.6.1979 as has been shown in his High School certificate. If the said representation is not made by the petitioner to the Secretary within the aforesaid period this order will seize to operate. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Harkauli, J. Dt. 1.9.2000" 5. If the said representation is not made by the petitioner to the Secretary within the aforesaid period this order will seize to operate. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Harkauli, J. Dt. 1.9.2000" 5. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 7.9.2000 along with the order of this Court dated 1.9.2000 to the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education. The Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education passed an order dated 16/19th October, 2002 rejecting the representation. He recorded finding that the certificate of High School in which petitioner claims his date of birth recorded is 18th June, 1979, was never issued by the Board and is a forged certificate. It was held that date of birth of the petitioner in the Board’s record is 4.10.1980. The first writ has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order. An F.I.R. was also lodged against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, I.P.C. on which case crime No. 264 of 2000 was registered in Police Station Dhoomanganj, Allahabad. 6. A show-cause notice dated 15th September, 2006 was issued to the petitioner that petitioner has filed forged certificate of High School and obtained employment in PAC, which appointment being based on forged certificate is null and void and cause be shown within 15 days as to why the selection of the petitioner be not cancelled and the amount which has been paid to the petitioner from Government Treasury towards salary and allowances be not recovered. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 54485/06 challenging the show-cause notice, which was dismissed as premature by order dated 5th October, 2006, the writ petition having been directed against the show-cause notice only Court observed that remedy of the petitioner lies in filing the reply to the show-cause. The petitioner thereafter submitted a reply to the Commandant and Commandant vide his order dated 10th April, 2007 cancelled the petitioner’s appointment and terminated his services and further directed recovery of salary and other allowances paid to the petitioner. The second writ petition No. 20298/07, has been filed challenging the order dated 10th April, 2007. 7. Counter-affidavits have been filed in both the writ petitions. The second writ petition No. 20298/07, has been filed challenging the order dated 10th April, 2007. 7. Counter-affidavits have been filed in both the writ petitions. In the first writ petition, counter-affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad as well as by the Principal of the Institutions from where the petitioner appeared in the High School Examination as well as of Head master of the Primary School. In the Second writ petition, counter-affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Commandant. Rejoinder affidavits have been filed by the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions were heard together on 1st April, 2008 on which date the learned Standing Counsel, who was appearing for the Secretary of the Board, was directed to produce the original records pertaining to the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of which, the impugned decision has been taken. The Original Tabulation Register was produced by the Board before this Court for perusal on 5th May, 2008 from which, it was noticed that date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in Original Tabulation Register of the Board is 4.10.1980. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the decision of the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad rejecting his representation for correcting the date of birth contended that the recording of date of birth of petitioner 4.10.1980 in the original record of the Board is incorrect. He submits that in the year 1994 itself the petitioner was issued Mark-sheet and Certificate of the High School by the Board which mentioned his date of birth as 18th June, 1979. He submits that in the school leaving certificate issued by the primary pathshala, his date of birth was recorded as 18th June, 1979. In the Scholar Register and Transfer Certificate issued by Sri Sant Ram Raj Goswami Intermediate College Daulatpur, Ballia also the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 18th June, 1979 and in Kunwar Singh Intermediate College Ballia, the date of birth recorded was 18th June, 1979. In the Scholar Register and Transfer Certificate issued by Sri Sant Ram Raj Goswami Intermediate College Daulatpur, Ballia also the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 18th June, 1979 and in Kunwar Singh Intermediate College Ballia, the date of birth recorded was 18th June, 1979. In support of his submission, the Transfer Certificate issued by Primary Pathshala and counter signed by Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikari 5th August 2000, the Scholar Register and Transfer Certificate issued by Sri Santi Ram Raj Goswami Intermediate College issued by Principal dated 2nd June, 2000 as well as Transfer Certificate dated 20th June, 2000 issued by the Principal and counter signed by the Assistant Associate District Basic Education Ballia 3rd June, 2000, have been relied and filed along with the writ petition. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 1.9.2000 directed the Secretary of Board to take a decision after considering the evidence given by the petitioner. He submits that Secretary of the Board did not consider the evidence which was filed by the petitioner in support of his case that his date of birth recorded was 18th June, 1979. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the F.I.R., the final report was submitted on 25.9.2001 by the Investigating Officer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner again reiterated that the original certificate sent by the High School mentioned his date of birth 18th June, 1979. 11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents refuting the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the original certificate which was filed by the petitioner before the Commandant containing 18th June, 1979 as his date of birth, was a forged certificate which was never issued to the petitioner by the Board. He submits that in the records of the Board, the date of birth of the petitioner recorded is 4.10.1980 and the original certificate which was issued to the petitioner bearing SI. No. 5200005 contained his correct date of birth 4.10.1980. He contends that in the application form submitted by the petitioner and the hand written namawali received from the petitioner from where the petitioner appeared in the High School examination, his date of birth mentioned was 4.10.1980 on the basis of which date of birth 4.10.1980 recorded in the Original Tabulation Register. He contends that in the application form submitted by the petitioner and the hand written namawali received from the petitioner from where the petitioner appeared in the High School examination, his date of birth mentioned was 4.10.1980 on the basis of which date of birth 4.10.1980 recorded in the Original Tabulation Register. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the original application forms have been weeded out and are not retained after limited period of time. He further contends that correction application seeking correction in the date of birth was filed for the first time on 22nd August, 2000 by the petitioner before which petitioner never prayed for correction in date of birth. 12. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. The main issue, which was arisen for determination in these two writ petitions is as to whether the High School Certificate and Mark-sheet which were filed by the petitioner claiming his date of birth 18th June, 1979 were genuine and as to whether the Board committed any error in rejecting the representation of the petitioner seeking correction in date of birth. The date of birth of the petitioner in the original records of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education is 4.10.1980, which is not disputed and is also verified from the Original Tabulation Register produced by the learned Standing Counsel before this Court. In the impugned order dated 16/19th October, 2002, the Secretary has recorded a categorical finding that petitioner in his form which he filled for appearing in High School Examination mentioned 4.10.1980 as his date of birth as well as in the hand written Namawali sent from the School to the Board, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 4.10.1980. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Principal of Kunwar Singh Intermediate College, Ballia. In the counter-affidavit sworn by Prasidha Narayan Singh, the Principal, Kunwar Singh Intermediate College, Ballia, it has been stated in paragraph 11 that there was a mistake in date of birth mentioned in the examination form of the High School, which mistake could not be pointed out. The finding recorded by the Secretary of the Board that petitioner in his application form for appearing in the High School Examination has filled 4.10.1980, has not been challenged in the writ petition. The finding recorded by the Secretary of the Board that petitioner in his application form for appearing in the High School Examination has filled 4.10.1980, has not been challenged in the writ petition. The petitioner had filed High School Certificate before the Commandant showing his date of birth as 18th June, 1979 with Roll No. 0993607 and also High School Mark-sheet showing the same date of birth. It is categorical case of the Board that original mark-sheet which was issued was with Serial No. 5200005 mentioning 4.10.1980 as his date of birth and the Certificate of the High School which has been filed by the petitioner before the Commandant seeking employment with 18th June, 1979 as his date of birth, was a forged certificate, which was never issued by the Board nor was prepared by the computer machine of the Board and had a different Serial No. i.e. 386043/82/002/0005. 14. Much emphasis has been laid down by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the school leaving transfer certificate verified on 5th August, 2000 by Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikari of Primary School, transfer certificate dated 2nd June, 2000 and transfer certificate issued by Kunwar Singh Intermediate College dated 20th June, 2000 and counter signed on 3rd June, 2000. It is relevant to note that the above transfer certificates which have been filed by the petitioner where the transfer certificates obtained subsequent to issue of the letter by the Board dated 1.1.2000 to the effect that correct date of birth of the petitioner in the board record is 4.10.1980. The certificates are not the original transfer certificates, which were issued by the Institution/School at the relevant time when the student was transferred from the Institution. These Certificates were not even in existence when the petitioner appeared in the High School Examination in the year 1994. 15. The case of the respondents that petitioner himself filled 4.10.1980 as his date of birth in the High School Examination is to be accepted as correct. There is no reason to discard the entry of date of birth 4.10.1980 in the record of the Board. 15. The case of the respondents that petitioner himself filled 4.10.1980 as his date of birth in the High School Examination is to be accepted as correct. There is no reason to discard the entry of date of birth 4.10.1980 in the record of the Board. The petitioner’s categorical case in the writ petition and also in his submissions has been that original certificate which was issued by the Board and was received by the petitioner in the year 1994 had mentioned 18th June, 1979 as his date of birth, which cannot be accepted in view of Original Tabulation Register produced by the Board and the findings recorded by Secretary that original certificate which is claimed by the petitioner to have been issued by the Board is not a genuine certificate issued by the Board and is a forged certificate. In the counter-affidavit filed by Assistant Commandant PAC, it has been categorically stated that the date of birth 18th June, 1979 has been claimed by the petitioner to get himself recruited in the department. It has been mentioned in the report dated 18.9.2000 which has been filed as Annexure-CA-3 to the counter-affidavit of J.P. Singh, Assistant Commandant, that advertisement which was issued by U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad required the candidate to have minimum age of 18 years and maximum age of 20 years on 1.1.1998. On the basis of date of birth of the petitioner 4.10.1980, petitioner was not eligible whereas on the basis of date of birth 18th June, 1979, petitioner became eligible and was ultimately recruited as Constable. Before the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education and before this Court, the petitioner has not been able to bring any material on record indicating his date of birth 18th June 1979 which material was obtained prior to 1.1.2000, the date when the Board informed the Commandant that the date of birth claimed by the petitioner is incorrect. The transfer certificates, which have been issued by the Primary School and Intermediate Colleges, which has been relied by the petitioner, were all obtained after the dispute arose. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Secretary did not decide the dispute as per judgment and order of this Court dated 1.9.2000 is also not correct. The transfer certificates, which have been issued by the Primary School and Intermediate Colleges, which has been relied by the petitioner, were all obtained after the dispute arose. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Secretary did not decide the dispute as per judgment and order of this Court dated 1.9.2000 is also not correct. At the stage, this Court disposed of the writ petition only prima facie observations were made and the matter was left for recording final finding by the Secretary of the Board. The Secretary in the order recorded finding that in his application form of High School Examination the date of birth 4.10.1980 was mentioned, which was duly verified by the Principal from the School record and forwarded to the Board and in hand written nominal roll sent by the School to the Board date of birth was also mentioned as 4.10.1980. As observed above, the copy of the transfer certificates which have been relied by the petitioner were all obtained subsequent to 1.1.2000 i.e. subsequent to the Board having not verified the date of birth of the petitioner 18th June, 1979 as claimed by him. In the present case, petitioner came with the case that Board issued the original certificate of High School mentioning his date of birth 18th June, 1979, which certificate was relied by the petitioner for employment, further it is not the case of the petitioner that Board issued the original certificate mentioning 4.10.1980, which date was entered due to some error in the Board’s record rather petitioner came with the case that in the original certificate issued by the Board, his date of birth was 18th June, 1979, which certificate was utilized by him for obtaining employment. The Board having recorded finding after verifying the materials available with the Board that certificate which is claimed by petitioner to have been issued by the Board, was never issued and was not prepared by the Board. The whole case of the petitioner falls on ground in view of the fact that Certificate mentioning date of birth 18th June, 1979 was never issued by the Board. The utilization of forged certificate by the petitioner for obtaining employment was found to be priorred. No error has been committed in rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 16. The whole case of the petitioner falls on ground in view of the fact that Certificate mentioning date of birth 18th June, 1979 was never issued by the Board. The utilization of forged certificate by the petitioner for obtaining employment was found to be priorred. No error has been committed in rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 16. One of the issue noticed by the Secretary in the impugned order is that as to whether the evidence of transfer certificates for correction in the date of birth can be accepted. The Board while considering the said issue found that application form of the petitioner for High School Examination was forwarded by the Principal after verification of the record of the School and verifying the entries therein in which 4.10.1980 was recorded on the basis of which in the Board record 4.10.1980 was recorded. The Board came to the conclusion that the Certificate and Mark-sheet of the High School relied by the petitioner mentioning his date of birth 18th June, 1979 was never issued by the Board and were forged and the case taken by the petitioner is an afterthought which is not to be accepted. No error is found in the above reasoning given by the Board in not accepting the transfer certificates relied by the petitioner. The Board was satisfied that School Authorities verified that 4.10.1980 was the date of birth of the petitioner, which date was mentioned in his High School form. 17. Taking into consideration the entire materials on record, the Secretary of the Board has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner. Petitioner having utilized a forged High School Certificate mentioning 18th June, 1979 as his date of birth for obtaining employment, which certificate was not issued by the Board, no error was committed by the Secretary in rejecting the representation. 18. Now coming to the order of Commandant directing for cancellation of the appointment and termination of the petitioner’s services, the said order was passed after giving a show-cause notice to the petitioner, which was duly replied. The Commandant after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner came to the conclusion that in the Board’s record the date of birth of the petitioner is 4.10.1980 and the original certificate and mark-sheet of the High School submitted by the petitioner containing the date of birth 4.10.1979 were forged documents. The Commandant after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner came to the conclusion that in the Board’s record the date of birth of the petitioner is 4.10.1980 and the original certificate and mark-sheet of the High School submitted by the petitioner containing the date of birth 4.10.1979 were forged documents. The order of the Secretary of the Board dated 19.10.2002 was also referred to by the Commandant. It has been categorically found that in the advertisement, the date of birth required was minimum 18 years and maximum 20 years on 1.1.1998 and petitioner to take benefit of the said employment notice, submitted a forged certificate showing his date of birth 18th June, 1979, so that he may be within the permissible age and can apply in the recruitment. The Commandant has recorded a categorical finding that petitioner has utilized forged certificate for obtaining employment. In view of the findings recorded by the Commandant that for obtaining employment, petitioner used forged certificate, no error can be said to have been committed by the Commandant in cancelling the appointment and terminating services of the petitioner, however, the Commandant has also passed an order directing for recovery of the salary and allowances paid to the petitioner. The petitioner after employment, was continued in service and has discharged his duties. The order dated 1.9.2000 of this Court also provided that till the Secretary decides the representation of the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner 18th June, 1979 be treated to be correct. Taking into consideration of overall facts and circumstances directing for recovery of salary and other allowances already paid to the petitioner, deserves to be set aside. The petitioner having worked and discharged his duties during the relevant period, it is in the interest of justice that the said salary and allowances be not recovered. 19. In result, the writ petition No. 58139/06 (first writ petition), is dismissed. Writ petition No. 20298/07 (second writ petition) is partly allowed. The order dated 10th April, 2007 in so far as it directs for recovery of salary and allowances already paid, is set aside. However, the order dated 10th April, 2007 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner dated 2.10.1998 and terminating his services is maintained. 20. The parties shall bear their own costs. ————