JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was a class IV employee in the Health Department. According to the respondents she was to retire on 31st July, 2007 as her date of birth according to the medical certificate was 13th July, 1947 and since she was allowed to continue beyond the said period, an order was passed on 7th January, 2008 retiring her from service forthwith with a further direction of recovery of the amount of salary obtained by her after 31st July, 2007. It is this order which is under challenge by the petitioner on the ground that the impugned order is founded on the strength of records which would not alter the status of the petitioner and that no information was given to the petitioner about any alteration in the date of birth as recorded in the service book. 2. The petitioner contends that the service book of the petitioner categorically records the date of birth of the petitioner as 13th July, 1949. The petitioner was never put to notice about any such alteration and her date of birth continued to be recorded as such in the service book. It is admitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter that her date of birth was recorded as 13th July, 1949 in the service book has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. It is submitted that in the absence of any such alteration made therein the respondents could not have proceeded to pass the impugned order. Reliance is placed on Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services Determination of Date of Birth Rules, 1974. The said rules are as follows : “The date of birth of a government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination, or where a government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into government service, shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be for all purposes in relation to his service, including eligibility for promotion superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever.” 3. The rules clearly indicate that they shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. It further indicates that the entry made in the service book shall be deemed to be the correct date of birth. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner was subjected to a medical test in the year 1996 and the medical certificate which was issued has been duly countersigned by her which indicates her date of birth as 13th July, 1947. On the strength of the said document it is urged that the impugned order has been rightly passed as the petitioner was aware of her date of birth as 13th July, 1947 and she cannot now be permitted to challenge the same. It is further indicated in the counter affidavit that during an inspection the aforesaid fact came to the notice of the authorities whereafter action was taken and an order had already been passed to refund the salary which has been paid in excess for the period beyond 31st July, 2007. 5. A rejoinder affidavit to the said counter affidavit has been filed reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition. 6. Before expressing any opinion in the merits of the impugned order it would be appropriate to record that when the field is already occupied by a statutory rule, then the authority ought to have noticed the same before having proceeded to take any action. The impugned order nowhere indicates the consideration of the 1974 rules referred to herein above. 7. It appears that the date of birth which was mentioned in the medical certificate dated 23rd April, 1996 has been taken to be conclusive proof of the date of birth of the petitioner. The said document is a medical certificate which was prepared at the time of the confirmation of the services of the petitioner. This medical examination appears to have been conducted for the purpose of confirming the services of the petitioner and was not undertaken for any such exercise in relation to the correction of date of birth of the petitioner. The authorities ought to have proceeded to give the petitioner notice and corrected her date of birth in case they wanted to do so on the strength of such medical certificate. The authorities ought to have proceeded to give the petitioner notice and corrected her date of birth in case they wanted to do so on the strength of such medical certificate. that too even in 1996 and not at the fag end of the career of the petitioner. The medical certificate would not have an overriding effect keeping in view the language used in the 1974 Rules referred to herein above. 8. Accordingly, the action of the respondents is not supported in law. There is no option but to quash the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 7th January, 2008 is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ————