Amitava Roy, J;- The subject matter of challenge is the judgment and order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (hereinafter for short referred to as the Tribunal) in Review Application No.07/2010 as well as the order dated 27.11.2009 passed by it in Original Application No.156/2008. 02. We have heard Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K Surana, learned counsel for the respondent. 03. The pleaded version of the respondent before the learned Tribunal inter alia was that he had joined the services of the NF Railways (for short hereinafter referred to as the Railways) in the year 1984 as a Gangman and eventually was promoted to the post of Mate vide Memorandum No.E/213/25(L)/AP-Pt.IV dated 01.02.1995. According to him, at the time of his entry in service he, as a testimony of his date of birth, had produced a transfer certificate dated 15.01.1974 issued by the Office of the Zila Siksha Adhikshak, Bhagalpur mentioning the same to be 12.02.1957. Though, he was subjected to the first medical fitness test sometime in the year 1989 he was then not in possession of the said certificate having misplaced the same. Referring to a later certificate issued after his next medical examination on 29.09.1999, the applicant averred that though his date of birth was referred to therein as 20.02.1952, he due to lack of adequate education did not understand fully the implication thereof and thus failed to respond thereto at the spot. He, however, on 30.09.1999 submitted a copy of the affidavit sworn by him before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati reiterating his date of birth to be 12.02.1957. He also prayed before the concerned authority for correcting his date of birth from 20.02.1952. According to him, as the said request was not heeded to, he submitted a representation on 26.05.2002 before the Divisional Railway Manager (P), N.F. Railway through proper channel along with another affidavit emphasizing his date of birth to be 12.02.1957. As his representation for correction of his date of birth lay pending before the concerned departmental authority, the Office of the Divisional Railway Manager(P), Rangia published a seniority list/gradation list of Mate under the Engineering Branch in which his name appeared at Sl. No.8 and his date of birth was shown to be 20.05.1952. As his representation for correction of his date of birth lay pending before the concerned departmental authority, the Office of the Divisional Railway Manager(P), Rangia published a seniority list/gradation list of Mate under the Engineering Branch in which his name appeared at Sl. No.8 and his date of birth was shown to be 20.05.1952. Thereafter, the applicant was served with Memo No.E/92/RN (Engg) Loose/13 dated 26.05.2008 conveying the rejection of his prayer for correction of his date of birth from 20.02.1952 to 12.02.1957. Situated thus, he approached the learned Tribunal for redress. 04. The petitioners, in their written statement before the learned Tribunal while admitting that the respondent herein was appointed initially on 01.01.1981, stated that he had attained temporary status on 01.01.1984. Referring to the first page of the Service Book of the Respondent, the petitioners averred that the entry “01.02.5…” was a tampered one and that by the side thereof the correct date of birth i.e. 20.02.1952 was recorded. They endorsed the authenticity of the entry 20.02.1952 amongst others by relating it to the Periodical Medical Examination report dated 29.09.1999 also carrying the same date i.e. 20.02.1952. This was more so, according to the petitioners as the said certificate bore the signature of the respondent therein. The order dated 26.05.2008 rejecting the respondent's prayer for correction/alteration of his date of birth to 12.02.1957 was thus endorsed. 05. The learned Tribunal at the first instance on an analysis of the pleaded facts as well as the documents on record allowed the application on the following considerations- (1) From the record it was not evident which date of birth had the respondent declared at the time of his entry in service; (2) The date appearing on the first page of the Service Book of the respondent was not filled up by him in his own handwriting, though he was considered to be a literate staff; (3) There is no material to support the claim whether the school certificate dated 15.01.1974 had been submitted or not at the time of his entry in service. However, it can not be inferred that the certificate had not been filed at the time of entry; (4) The veracity of the recorded date of birth is shrouded in the “mist of doubt”; (5) No cogent reason has been adduced as to why the school certificate should not be accepted as true; (6) In absence of any other evidence, the date of birth recorded in the school certificate is acceptable. 06. In the review application filed by the petitioners herein before the learned Tribunal, they brought on record a letter dated 06.05.2010 of the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur addressed to the Divisional Railway Manager (P), NF Railways, Rangia to the effect that the school leaving/transfer certificate relied upon by the respondent herein was doubtful as per the report of the Block Development Officer, Sanholla submitted after the verification thereof. 07. The learned Tribunal by its order dated 17.09.2010 on the very first day after hearing the learned counsel for the parties refused to interfere on the ground that the above official communication could not be construed to be a clinching evidence with regard to the date of birth of the respondent, though, it expressed some doubt about the certificate dated 15.01.1974. It, therefore, discarded this communication to be irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the issue. It concluded that as there was no discovery of new or important fact or evidence and no apparent error was discernible, no review of its earlier determination was called for. 08. Ms. B. Devi has argued with reference to Rule 225 of the IREC, Vol-I, in particular that in the facts and circumstances of the case the interference of the learned Tribunal with the respondent's recorded date of birth of 20.02.1952 is wholly unsustainable in law, and therefore the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2009 is liable to be annulled. As in terms of the letter dated 06.05.2010 of the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur, the transfer certificate dated 15.01.1974 is patently unreliable vis-à-vis the respondent's claim of his date of birth as 12.02.1957, the learned Tribunal manifestly erred in law and on facts in declining to review its conclusions recorded in the Original judgment and order, she urged. As in terms of the letter dated 06.05.2010 of the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur, the transfer certificate dated 15.01.1974 is patently unreliable vis-à-vis the respondent's claim of his date of birth as 12.02.1957, the learned Tribunal manifestly erred in law and on facts in declining to review its conclusions recorded in the Original judgment and order, she urged. Apart from contending that the respondent's representation for correction/alteration of his recorded date of birth was unduly belated without any justification barring consideration of the request made therein under Rule 225 of the IREC, the learned Standing Counsel referred as well to the medical examination report dated 29.09.1999 and the gradation list dated 06.05.2008 to maintain that the decision of the concerned authority sustaining the respondent's date of birth to be 20.02.1952 is unassailable in law. Ms. Devi also referred to and relied upon the entry relating to the date of birth of the respondent appearing on the first page of his Service Book in endorsement of the validity of the action taken by the concerned departmental authority. Apart from producing the Service Book of the respondent in original for the perusal of this Court, the learned Standing Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & others, v. R. Kirubakaran, AIR 1993 SC 2647 and the Commissioner of Police, Bombay and another, v Bhagwan V.Lahane, AIR 1997 SC 1986 . In reply, Mr. Surana has urged against the plea of delay on the part of the respondent in representing against the incorrect date of birth of 20.02.1952 by drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by him on 30.09.1999 claiming it to be 12.02.1957. Relying heavily on the transfer certificate dated 15.01.1974, the learned counsel has insisted that in terms of Rule 225 of the IREC, the respondent's date of birth was rightly recorded to be 01.02.1957, which unilaterally was altered to 20.02.1952 to his prejudice. Dismissing the gradation list dated 6.05.2008 to be of no relevance, the same having been issued at an about the sometime of the decision dated 26.05.2008 rejecting the respondent's prayer for correction/alteration of his date of birth, Mr. Surana has urged that as the relevant records bearing on the issue had not been produced by the Railways before the learned Tribunal, no reliance thereon by this Court ought to be made. Surana has urged that as the relevant records bearing on the issue had not been produced by the Railways before the learned Tribunal, no reliance thereon by this Court ought to be made. He also submitted against any probative worth of the letter dated 06.05.2010 of the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur contending that as the preliminary document i.e. the report of the Block Development Education Officer, Sanholla which is not a part of the record, the transfer certificate dated 15.01.1974 cannot be disregarded as unauthentic or unreliable. 09. The pleadings on record and the documents available have been duly considered. The arguments advanced have also been appropriately analysed. That the respondent had joined the Railways in the year 1984 as a Gangman and was eventually appointed as Mate on 01.02.1995 are matters of record. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2009 belies the plea raised on behalf of the respondent about non-production of the relevant records by the Railways for its perusal and reference. 10. According to the respondent, at the time of his entry in service, he had submitted the transfer certificate (referred to in his pleadings as School Leaving Certificate) dated 15.01.1974 issued by the Office of the Zila Siksha Adhikshak, Bhagalpur mentioning his date of birth as 12.02.1957. In other words, the respondent had in categorical terms asserted to have produced the above document by way of declaration of his date of birth at the time of his entry in service. It is considered expedient at this juncture to extract Rule 225 of IREC, Volume-I, which in our view embodies the guiding principles in the matter of recording and/or alteration of the date of birth of an employee of the Railway - “225. Date of birth- (i) Every person, on entering railway service, shall declare his date of birth which shall not differ from any declaration expressed or implied for any public purpose before entering railway service. In the case of illiterate staff, the date of birth shall be entered in the record of service in the railway servant's own handwriting. In the case of illiterate staff, the declared date of birth shall be recorded by a senior railway servant and witnessed by another railway servant. (2) A person who is not able to declare his age should not be appointed to railway service. In the case of illiterate staff, the declared date of birth shall be recorded by a senior railway servant and witnessed by another railway servant. (2) A person who is not able to declare his age should not be appointed to railway service. (3) (a) When a person entering service is unable to give his date of birth but gives his age, he should be assumed to have completed the stated age on the date of attestation, e.g. if a person enters service on 1st January, 1980 and if on that date his age was stated to be 18, his date of birth should be taken as 1st January, 1962. (b) When the year or year and month of birth are known but not the exact date, the 1st July or 16th of that month, respectively, shall be treated as the date of birth. (4) Where date of birth as recorded in accordance with these rules shall be held to be binding and no alteration of such date shall ordinarily be permitted subsequently. It shall, however, be open to the President in the case of a Group A & B railway servant, and a General Manager in the case of a Group C & D railway servant to cause the date of birth to be altered. (i) where in his opinion it had been falsely stated by railway servant to obtain an advantage or otherwise inadmissible, provided that such alteration shall not result in the railway servant being retained in service longer than if the alteration had not been made, or (ii) where, in the case of illiterate staff, the General Manager is satisfied that a clerical error has occurred, or (iii) Where a satisfactory explanation (which should not be entertained after completion of the probation period, or three years service, whichever is earlier) of the circumstances in which the wrong date came to be entered is furnished by the railway servant concerned, together with the statement of any previous attempts made to have the record amended.” 11. Sub Rule 3(a) prescribes that when a person enters in service but is unable to give his date of birth but gives his age, he should be assumed to have completed the stated age on the date of his attestation. Sub Rule 3(a) prescribes that when a person enters in service but is unable to give his date of birth but gives his age, he should be assumed to have completed the stated age on the date of his attestation. By way of an instance, the Sub Rule recites that if a person enters in service on 1st January,1980, and if on that date his age is stated to be 18, his date of birth should be taken on as 1st January,1962. In view of the unambiguous averment made by the respondent in Paragraph - 4 on the application before the learned Tribunal that at the time of his entry in service he had submitted his transfer certificate dated 15.01.1974 mentioning his date of birth to be 12.02.1957, we are unable to sustain the plea on his behalf that his date of birth in the service book was recorded presumably in terms of Sub Rule 3(a) of Rule 225 to be 01.02.1957. 12. A plain reading of the entry i.e. 01.02.5…., on an eye estimation does not conclusively suggest that the same was written as 01.02.1957. On the other hand, the entry 20.02.1952 is hyaline clear. The Service Book on a scrutiny reveals that on the overleaf of the first page, the respondent had put his signature. Though, neither the two entries i.e. 01.02.5…. or 20.02.1952 as well as the signature of the respondent bears any date, we are unable to assume that on the date of his signature the entry dated 20.02.1952 was non existent. Noticeably, this is not the pleaded case of the respondent before us. In that view of the matter in the face of the available presumption of validity of official acts in law we are unable to reject the petitioners contention that the respondent's date of birth was entered as 20.02.1952 with his knowledge and consent. 13. Noticeably, this is not the pleaded case of the respondent before us. In that view of the matter in the face of the available presumption of validity of official acts in law we are unable to reject the petitioners contention that the respondent's date of birth was entered as 20.02.1952 with his knowledge and consent. 13. Though, in his affidavit dated 30.09.2009 the respondent claimed his date of birth to be 12.02.1957 logically on the basis of the transfer certificate dated 15.01.1974, in the teeth of the letter dated 06.05.2010 of the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur repudiating this document to be doubtful on the basis of a verification made by the Block Development Education Officer, Sanholla, we are constrained to conclude that the learned Tribunal had unmistakably erred in leaving out of consideration, this communication (06.05.2010) and rejecting the application for review of earlier determination as contained in the judgment and order dated 27.11.2009. Though, an endeavour has been made on behalf of the respondent to render this letter inconsequential in absence of the report of the Block Development Education Officer, Sanholla, we do not feel persuaded to uphold this plea. In absence of any material on record to discredit the correctness of the opinion/finding expressed/recorded in the letter dated 06.05.2010 holding the transfer certificate dated 15.01.1974 to be doubtful. In this view of the matter, the respondent's claim of his date of birth as 12.02.1957 falls apart. The periodical medical examination report dated 29.09.1999 recording the respondent's date of birth 20.02.1952, on entry in service in the above facts and circumstances also cannot be lightly repudiated. Undeniably his date of birth as 20.05.1952 finds recorded in the inter se seniority list of Mate under the Engineering Branch, Rny dated 06.05.2008 issued on behalf of NF Railway, Rangia. 14. In the face of the above overwhelming contemporaneous records negating the Respondent's claim of date of birth to be 12.02.1957, though this date i.e. 20.05.1952 does not match exactly with the one recorded as 20.02.1952, it by no means do demolish the case of the petitioners. Considering the opinion expressed by the District Education Officer, Sanholla against the authenticity of the certificate transfer dated 15.01.1974 of the respondent we feel persuaded to hold that the learned Tribunal had fallen in gross error in upholding his claim of date of birth to be 12.02.1957. 15. Considering the opinion expressed by the District Education Officer, Sanholla against the authenticity of the certificate transfer dated 15.01.1974 of the respondent we feel persuaded to hold that the learned Tribunal had fallen in gross error in upholding his claim of date of birth to be 12.02.1957. 15. Apart from the fact that in terms of the mandate contained in Sub- Rule(4) of Rule 225 of the IREC, the date of birth as recorded is binding and that no alteration thereof is ordinarily permissible, none of the contingencies as contemplated therein is existent in the attendant facts and circumstances to validly cause the respondent's date of birth to be altered as insisted upon by him. Significantly, the respondent has not pleaded bias or mala fide against the petitioners or for that matter against any authority of the Railway establishment, so much so to infer that his date of birth had been recorded wrongly so as to unjustifiably, arbitrarily and unreasonably deny him the benefit of service as entitled in law on collateral considerations. In the above facts and circumstances and on a consideration of the totality of the findings recorded, we hold that the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2009 rendered in Original Application No.156/2008 and the order dated 17.09.2010 passed in Review Application No.7/2010 are unsustainable in law and on facts. These are interfered with and quashed. The petition is allowed. We leave the parties however to bear their own costs.