JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Both the writ petitions by and between the same parties being interrelated to each other have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The dispute relates to date of birth of the petitioner. The first writ petition being WP(C) No. 7871/2003 was filed for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner with effect from 1.11.2001 and to quash the Annexure-5 letter dated 10.3.2003 by which the Block Elementary Education Officer (respondent No. 5) intimated the petitioner that his salary was held up as per the order of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The second writ petition being WP(C) No. 9343/2003 was filed by the petitioner making a grievance against the Annexure-1 order dated 29.10.2003 by which the Block Elementary Education Officer directed the petitioner to hand over charge of Headmaster of the school in which he had been working, upon his release from service with immediate effect. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher of LP School on 1.8.1976. Thereafter he became the Headmaster. While he was continuing as such, his salary was held up by Annexure-1 order dated 1.11.2001 pending drawal of departmental enquiry. However, the order was vacated by Annexure-3 letter dated 2.1.2003. When the salary bill of the petitioner was submitted for payment, the Annexure-5 letter dated 10.3.2003 was issued to the petitioner, once again intimating about withholding of his salary. Hence the first writ petition was filed. 4. After filing of the first writ petition, the impugned order dated 29.10.2003 releasing the petitioner from service having been passed, the petitioner filed the second writ petition making a grievance against the same. It is the plea of the petitioner that he could not have been released from service in the manner and method in which the same was affected. 5. In the second writ petition, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit bringing on records the fact of issuance of the letter dated 17.5.2001 by the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Jorhat to the Block Elementary Education Officer (BEEO), Majuli asking him to send the service book and original Metric Certificate of the petitioner immediately. 5. In the second writ petition, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit bringing on records the fact of issuance of the letter dated 17.5.2001 by the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Jorhat to the Block Elementary Education Officer (BEEO), Majuli asking him to send the service book and original Metric Certificate of the petitioner immediately. According to the statement made in the additional affidavit, the copy of the said letter is not available with the petitioner, but the contents of the same was recorded from the records of the office of the DEEO, Jorhat. 6. The respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner in fact was to retire from service on 31.3.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation, but he managed to continue in his service by submitting false and fabricated document. In this connection, the respondents have annexed Annexure-A letter dated 19.1.2002 addressed to the particular students' organization by the Assistant Controller of Examinations, Board of Secondary Education, Assam as well as the Annexure-B letter dated 23.10.2003 addressed to the DEEO, Jorhat by the Registrar, Board of Secondary Education, Assam. 7. As per aforesaid Annexure-A letter dated 19.1.2002 upon a verification of the Matriculation certificate of the petitioner bearing Roll-Jor No. 2059 of 1964, same was found to be false and that the age of the petitioner as of 1.3.1964 was 20 years 11 months 0 days according to the office record. By Annexure-B letter dated 23.10.2003 also, same thing was communicated. Based on such revelation made by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA), the respondents took the decision to release the petitioner from service as he had already attained the age of superannuation. According to the respondents, as per the guidelines/circular issued by the Personnel Department, drawal of excess amount beyond the age of superannuation i.e. 31.3.2001 is recoverable from the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply bringing on record certain more documents. By Annexure-1 document dated 3.11.2001, the DEEO, Jorhat requested the SEBA to investigate the matter relating to the HSLC certificate of the petitioner as the same was found to be confusing. The petitioner has annexed the photocopy of the HSLC certificate showing overwriting in respect of earlier recorded age. As per such overwriting, the age of the petitioner as of 1st of March, 1964 was 14 years. The petitioner has annexed the photocopy of the HSLC certificate showing overwriting in respect of earlier recorded age. As per such overwriting, the age of the petitioner as of 1st of March, 1964 was 14 years. The Annexure-2 document is a letter dated 26.11.2001 purportedly written by one Sri B.C. Medhi, Controller of Examination, SEBA to the DEEO, Jorhat on the subject of verification of age conveying that upon verification, it was found that the petitioner's date of birth is 14 years and the date of birth had been corrected as per MRS record, by the Secretary, SEBA. 9. Since the aforesaid letter will have a bearing in the matter, same is quoted below: BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION: ASSAM: GUWAHATI No. SEBA/EX/DB/97/199 Dated Guwahati the 26th Nov, 2001 From : Shri B.C. Medhi Controller of Examination Board of Secondary Education Assam, Guwahati-21 To The D.E.E.O. Jorhat Sub: Verification of Age. Ref: Your letter No. DE/MISC/99/449, dated 3.11.2001 According to the subject cited above and your letter No. DE/MISC/99/449, dated 3.11.2001. I have the honour to inform you that the matter of Shri Nalin Borah under Roll Jor No. 2059 in the year 1964 is verified and found that the candidate is passed in the Third Division and the Date of Birth is 14 years X months X days. But the date of birth has been corrected as per MRS record by the Secretary, SEBA at that time. Yours faithfully Sd/-Illegible B.C. Medhi Controller of Examination, SEBA Guwahati-21. 10. Upon a reference to the aforesaid letter purportedly issued by the Controller of Examination, SEBA, the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Assam, issued the Annexure-3 letter dated 5.1.2002 to the DEEO, Jorhat conveying that as per the said letter, the age of the petitioner was 14 years. However, the letter does not mention as to when the petitioner was 14 years of age. 11. From the aforesaid materials on record what has emerged is that as against the claim of the petitioner that his age as of 1st March, 1964 was 14 years, it is the claim of the respondents that the age of the petitioner as of 1st March, 1964 was 20 years 11 month, based on which, the age of superannuation of the petitioner was 31.3.2001. On the other hand, if the petitioner was only 14 years of age as of 1st March, 1964, his date of retirement will be 1.3.2008. 12. I have heard Mr. M. A. Sheikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA. I have also heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. The official respondents have produced the records and I have gone through the same. I have also given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. 13. Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner upon a reference to the documents annexed to the affidavit-in-reply argued that the petitioner's age being 14 years as of Ist March, 1964, the respondents could not have made him to retire from service prematurely. On the other hand Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department as well as Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA submitted that there being manipulation of age in the HSLC certificate contrary to the entry in the official records, the petitioner cannot claim continuation in service beyond the age of superannuation based on forgery made. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel also supported the stand of the learned Standing Counsels. 14. According to the respondents, the above quoted letter dated 26.11.2001 is a fake one and the correction made in the HSLC certificate is not authorized, but a manipulated one. The SEBA by its letter dated 6.6.2007 intimated Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel that in the MRS as submitted by the Headmaster of the school in question, the age of the petitioner was 20 years 11 months as of 1.3.1964, but the same was overwritten/manipulated with red ink as 14 years by someone in the office although in the Tabulation Register, the age of the petitioner remained 20 years 11 months. The records have revealed that the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat conducted an enquiry on the basis of the complaints lodged by certain organizations. As per the findings of the enquiry, the correction of age in the HSLC certificate is not genuine and that the above quoted letter dated 26.11.2001 is a forged one. The Deputy Commissioner through the Sub-divisional Officer, Majuli, conducted the enquiry. 15. As per the findings of the enquiry, the correction of age in the HSLC certificate is not genuine and that the above quoted letter dated 26.11.2001 is a forged one. The Deputy Commissioner through the Sub-divisional Officer, Majuli, conducted the enquiry. 15. The whole basis of the claim of the petitioner is the above quoted letter dated 26.11.2001 and the purported correction made on the body of the HSLC certificate. The language employed in the said letter purportedly written by an authority like the Controller of Examination, SEBA does not inspire confidence of this Court on the authenticity of the same. Same will also have be tested in the touchstone of the stand of the SEBA that the letter is a forged one and was never issued from the office of the SEBA. Sri B.C. Medhi, who had purportedly issued the said letter himself has certified by his endorsement dated 19.1.2002 on the body of the letter that the same is completely false. 16. In case of any correction relating to the age recorded in the HSLC certificate, same is not done, in the manner and method in which it was done in case of the petitioner's certificate. Admittedly, original age recorded in the HSLC certificate was different than the purported corrected age. In case of any correction, certain procedure is required to be followed, such as making application, forwarding of the same by the school authority, correction of the age in the School Register, acceptance of the same by the authorities of the SEBA etc. It is only thereafter, such change can be carried out in the HSLC certificate. The petitioner is absolutely silent in this regard. There is no whisper in the writ petitions that although the original age recorded in the HSLC certificate was 20 years, 11 months, but on the basis of the request made by the petitioner and upon observance of the necessary formalities, same was corrected by the authorized officer of SEBA as 14 years. It is not the procedure that anybody can go to the office of the SEBA with his HSLC certificate and get the age corrected on the body of the certificate without adhering to the procedure incidental thereto. 17. It is not the procedure that anybody can go to the office of the SEBA with his HSLC certificate and get the age corrected on the body of the certificate without adhering to the procedure incidental thereto. 17. The fact that the above quoted letter is a fake one which has also been certified by the purported author of the same by his endorsement dated 19.1.2002, is amply evident from the language employed in the letter. For instance, as per the said letter, the date of birth of the petitioner is 14 years and that the date of birth has been corrected. Date of birth of the petitioner cannot be 14 years. The letter also does not speak as to on which date, the petitioner was 14 years of age. The letter speaks of MRS record, which means Manuscript Record Sheet. As per the letter dated 6.6.2007 addressed to the learned Standing Counsel, SEBA by the Secretary, SEBA, the correction made in the HSLC certificate is a manipulated one. Further, if as per the MRS the age of the petitioner was corrected, the Tabulation Register would have contained the corrected age. As per the said letter dated 6.6.2007, the age of the petitioner in the Tabulation Register remains as 20 years 11 months. Further the MRS furnished by the Headmaster of the school depicts manipulation without any authentication. 18. When the authority i.e. SEBA itself has denied the purported correction made in the HSLC certificate coupled with the certification made by Sri B.C. Medhi, who purportedly issued the letter dated 16.11.01 to the effect that the said letter is completely false one, the petitioner cannot base his claim on the said letter, which is apparently a manipulated one. 19. For all the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in releasing the petitioner from service on attaining the age of superannuation calculated on the basis of the original date of birth recorded in the HSLC certificate, which also finds place in the records of SEBA, which include the Tabulation Register. 20. The next question, which comes up for consideration is as to whether the petitioner will be entitled to his monthly salary for the period he worked beyond the age of superannuation i.e. from 1.4.2001 to 27.10.2003, on which date he was released from service. 20. The next question, which comes up for consideration is as to whether the petitioner will be entitled to his monthly salary for the period he worked beyond the age of superannuation i.e. from 1.4.2001 to 27.10.2003, on which date he was released from service. The petitioner continued in his service on the basis of the forgery made. It is not a case of extracting services from the petitioner forcefully by the respondents on a mistaken view of the matter. Rather it is the petitioner, who thrust himself upon the respondents by his fraudulent act. In the event of directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period, same will amount to giving premium to his fraudulent act. 21. The Apex Court in the case of State of Manipur v. Y. Token Singh reported in (2007) 5 SCC 65 dealing with illegal appointments and claim of salary by the illegal appointees observed thus: 17. If the offers of appointments issued in favour of the respondents herein were forged documents, the State could not have been compelled to pay salaries to them from the State exchequer. Any action, which had not been taken by an authority competent therefore and in complete violation of the constitutional and legal framework, would not be binding on the State. In any event, having regard to the fact that the said authority himself had denied to have issued a letter, there was no reason for the State not to act pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof. The action of the State did not, thus, lack bona fides. 18. Moreover, it was for the respondents who had filed the writ petitions to prove existence of legal right in their favour. They had inter alia prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. It was, thus, for them to establish existence of a legal right in their favour and a corresponding legal duty in the respondents to continue to be employed. With a view to establish their legal rights to enable the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus, the respondents were obligated to establish that the appointments had been made upon following the constitutional mandate adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. With a view to establish their legal rights to enable the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus, the respondents were obligated to establish that the appointments had been made upon following the constitutional mandate adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They have not been able to show that any advertisement had been issued inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the said posts. It has also not been shown that the vacancies had been notified to the employment exchange. 22. In that view of the matter I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to receive salary for the said period. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and consequently, both the writ petitions fail. Writ petitions are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed