JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner contends that he could not have been eliminated from his service inasmuch as he was fully eligible qualified and he had appeared in the selections which were held in the year 2006. 3. From a perusal of the facts on record, it is evident that on an earlier occasion, the claim of the petitioner had been non-suited on account of an incorrect inquiry having been made with regard to the genuineness of the High School Certificate of the petitioner. The said claim was allowed by this Court vide order dated 9.7.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 59329 of 2007 whereafter the claim of the petitioner was re-examined and it is evident that the last date of the application under the Advertisement was 30.8.2005 and the maximum age permissible under the Advertisement was 20 years as on 1.7.2005. The petitioner’s date of birth, according to the High School Certificate, is 10.7.1985. In view of the age limit as prescribed in the Advertisement, the petitioner was 9 days less than 20 years and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner appears to have been incorrectly assessed by the respondents - authorities. 4. The impugned order records that some information was received from the Principal of the institution on 19.11.2009 and on the strength thereof, it is alleged that the petitioner’s date of birth is 1.4.1987. 5. It is by now well settled by a series of decisions that the date of birth as recorded in the matriculation examination is conclusive proof unless the same is demolished by some other material that too even by the competent authority. In the instant case, the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in the High School and as admitted to the respondents is 10.7.1985. Any alteration in the date of birth of the High School Certificate can be done in accordance with the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In the event any other date is recorded in the institution, the same would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner once his date of birth has been initially recorded as 10.7.1985 in the High School Certificate. In the event any other date is recorded in the institution, the same would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner once his date of birth has been initially recorded as 10.7.1985 in the High School Certificate. The authorities have to raise a presumption in favour of the date of birth as recorded in the High School Certificate and not on the basis of any information received from the institution or the Principal of the institution. 6. Further it is evident that the impugned order has been passed relying on the information given by the Principal of the institution on 19.11.2009. The said information was received and the order was passed without putting the petitioner to notice or calling upon him to rebut the said contention. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is also invalid as being in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. Learned Standing Counsel could not successfully dispute the said position. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.1.2009, which proceeds on an erroneous assumption of law, is hereby quashed without calling for any counter-affidavit. The authority shall pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made herein above within 3 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. ————