JUDGMENT Honble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. 2. This writ petition was listed in Court No. 28. By order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice/Hon’ble Senior Judge, the work of Court No. 28 was also assigned to me on 13.1.2009. 3. Petitioner was appointed as peon in Haquim Mukut Lal, Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bulandshahr on 1.7.1977. The school in question is privately managed but aided by the Government and is governed by provisions of U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971) and salary to its employees is paid by the Government under the said Act. The dispute is as to whether date of birth of petitioner is 10.7.1940 or 10.7.1948. District Inspector of Schools decided the matter in favour of the petitioner through order dated 1.9.2000 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Against the said order, management filed appeal. Joint Director of Education I, Mandal Meerut through order dated 5.1.2001 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the D.I.O.S. and declared that petitioner’s date of birth was 10.7.1940 and he retired on 31.7.2000. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. 4. The first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that against order of D.I.O.S. dated 1.9.2000, no appeal was maintainable. Under administrative hierarchy, Joint Director of Education is higher than D.I.O.S. If D.I.O.S. passes an order unnecessarily burdening the State exchequer or any other order concerning recognised aided educational institutions, Director or Joint Director under administrative hierarchy is fully empowered to adjudge the correctness of the said order and to set that aside in case that is not legally tenable. In strict legal sense, appeal might not be maintainable but nomenclature is never fatal. The power exercised by Joint Director of Education was in the nature of administrative review which was quite permissible. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly placed reliance upon his service book, photostat copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-CA-I to the counter affidavit filed by the management. On the face of it the service book contains manipulation, cutting and overwriting. It is quite clear to the naked eye that the figures ‘40’ have been attempted to be converted into ‘48’ by overwriting by a thick pen. On the face of it the service book contains manipulation, cutting and overwriting. It is quite clear to the naked eye that the figures ‘40’ have been attempted to be converted into ‘48’ by overwriting by a thick pen. The words ‘ten July year forty’ written at the correct place have been scored off and thereafter the words ‘ten July year forty eight’ have been written (after the figures 10.7.1948). First, the figures 10.7.1940 were attempted to be converted into 10.7.1948 by overwriting through a thick pen. Thereafter, it was scored off and over that figures 10.7.1948 were written. Principal, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 5 through his counter affidavit, has fully supported the petitioner. Mischief was played by the Principal. Sri N.S. Vishta, the D.I.O.S., who passed the order dated 1.9.2000, was also jointly supporting the petitioner. In the impugned order, D.I.O.S. has mentioned that the date of birth of petitioner is clearly mentioned as 10.7.1948. Photostat copy of the service book annexed with the counter affidavit of the management and strongly relied upon by the petitioner completely disproves the finding. As stated above there is a lot of overwriting and cutting and it is quite clear that initially date of birth was 10.7.1940. The tone and tenor of the order of D.I.O.S. leaves no doubt that he was constantly supporting the petitioner. The Joint Director has very rightly set aside the said order. 6. Petitioner has placed reliance upon some Transfer Certificates of some school of fourth or fifth class. Supreme Court in AIR 2006 SC 2157 , Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P., has held that it is only a certificate of High School, which is relevant for determining date of birth and T.Cs. of inferior classes have got no value. 7. It is also important to note that when new pay-scales were applied/made applicable, date of birth of petitioner was shown to be 10.7.1940. C.M.O. on 10.8.1978 had determined age of petitioner on the basis of which his date of birth was entered as 10.7.1940. The Transfer Certificate filed by the petitioner was found to be forged. In any case, at the fag end, an employee cannot seek correction of date of birth. Moreover, petitioner in order to seek correction of his date of birth fraudulently got the records tempered. 8. The Transfer Certificate filed by the petitioner was found to be forged. In any case, at the fag end, an employee cannot seek correction of date of birth. Moreover, petitioner in order to seek correction of his date of birth fraudulently got the records tempered. 8. Accordingly, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. 9. Authority concerned is directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the then D.I.O.S., Bulandshahr, Sri N.S. Vishta. However, it is directed that pensionary benefits of the petitioner should be paid to him treating him to have validly retired on 10.7.2000. 10. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to learned Standing Counsel within a week. ————