JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Monika Sahai, Brief Holder for State. 2. Petitioner herein was appointed as Seasonal Collection Peon on 3.3.1999. His date of birth as recorded in the service record was 10.7.1981. A writ petition was filed before this Court by Ajayab Singh and others for finalization of the tentative seniority list dated 15.10.2011 and thereafter for regularization of their services against 31 vacant post of Seasonal Collection Peon in District Baghpat under 50% quota of collection peon as provided under the U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004. In pursuant thereof an exercise was undertaken by the respondent and a final seniority list was issued on 27.10.2012 wherein petitioner was placed at S.No. 38. The reasoning for placing the petitioner at Sl. No. 38 has been mentioned in the impugned order i.e. the Committee headed by A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue) decided on 27.12.2012 that the petitioner, on the alleged date of his appointment, was less than 18 years of age and therefore, the total of 133 work days put in by him while he was less than 18 years were excluded for consideration while determining his seniority and accordingly, his seniority was changed from 19 to 38. The Committee further decided that as the petitioner had obtained payment by concealing the relevant fact, therefore, the concerned authority is to take action against the officers/employee who had facilitated such illegal appointment of the petitioner and also for recovery of the salary paid to him for the said period. 3. It appears that petitioner raised oral objection before the respondents in this regard. Ultimately a show-cause notice dated 7.12.2012 was issued to the petitioner in the matter which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ A No. 2561 of 2013 which was disposed of by the following order dated 17.1.2013- “Pursuant to the notice dated 7.12.2012, the petitioner submitted a reply, which is pending consideration. On the other hand, the petitioner is not being right to work on the alleged ground that initial appointment of the petitioner was incorrect. Whatever, may be the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Authority concerned to take final decision in the matter pursuant to the notice dated 7.12.2012 within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.” 4. Whatever, may be the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Authority concerned to take final decision in the matter pursuant to the notice dated 7.12.2012 within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.” 4. In pursuance to the aforesaid, proceedings took place before the District Magistrate/Collector, Baghpat and after opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, impugned order has been passed directing the concerned S.D.M. to black list the petitioner from the final seniority list of seasonal collection peon dated 27.10.2012, on the ground that he had obtained appointment while being less than 18 years of age by concealing the relevant facts. The impugned order also states that the petitioner, for the reasons aforesaid, is not entitled to be considered for regularization. Consequent to the aforesaid order dated 21.2.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed another order dated 8.4.2013/16.4.2013 whereby he has ‘black listed’ the petitioner from the seniority list dated 27.12.2012. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once a decision was taken by the respondents to treat his date of initial appointment as 7.2.2000 and the petitioner was place at S.No. 38 accordingly, though he was earlier placed at S.No. 19, then there was no occasion for the District Magistrate, Baghpat to have ordered for ‘black listing’ of the petitioner i.e. his exclusion from the seniority list of seasonal collection peon as also from the zone of consideration for regularization. He submitted that at no point of time petitioner has concealed any fact. The date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned in the service record as 10.7.1981 and the same was never changed. It is on the basis of this very date that the petitioner was found to be less than 18 years of age at the time of his initial appointment and therefore, there is no question of any concealment/mis-representation. If there was any error the authorities were also responsible , for which a solution was that the petitioner can be treated as having been appointed on a date not prior to that of completion of 18 years. In view of the aforesaid the impugned action is totally unjustified. 7. If there was any error the authorities were also responsible , for which a solution was that the petitioner can be treated as having been appointed on a date not prior to that of completion of 18 years. In view of the aforesaid the impugned action is totally unjustified. 7. On the other hand learned Brief Holder submits that the petitioner had concealed and mis-represented the fact and obtained initial appointment fraudulently and therefore, impugned order has rightly been passed black listing him from the seniority list and excluding him from the zone of consideration for regularization. 8. Upon consideration of the fact and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a case where petitioner had given a wrong date of birth based on which he obtained the initial appointment and subsequently it was revealed that the date of birth was different, according to which he was less than 18 years. Though, petitioner claims to have been born on 10.7.1980, but the fact is that the authorities recorded his date of birth as 10.7.1981. The authorities knowingly appointed the petitioner in 1999 inspite of his date of birth as 10.7.1981 and inspite of the fact that he was less than 18 years. The Court fails to understand as to where is the concealment or mis-representation by the petitioner in this matter. As the petitioner was less than 18 years of age he should not have been appointed but the fact is that the respondent did so and more than 14 years have passed since the initial appointment of the petitioner. In my view, there was no mis-representation or concealment by the petitioner to take undue advantage and therefore, respondents should treat his initial appointment from the date on which he actually completed 18 years of age and should consider him for grant of service benefits whether seniority or consideration for regularization accordingly, but the impugned order ‘black listing’ him, a concept unknown to service jurisprudence, is not sustainable as excluding him from seniority list is completely unjustified. Likewise his exclusion form the zone of consideration for regularization is also unjustified. Had it been a case of concealment at the stage of initial appointment for the purpose of taking undue advantage then the situation might have been different. Likewise his exclusion form the zone of consideration for regularization is also unjustified. Had it been a case of concealment at the stage of initial appointment for the purpose of taking undue advantage then the situation might have been different. Based on the date of birth as recorded initially petitioner being less than 18 years and yet having been appointed by the respondents, it cannot be said that there is mis-representation or concealment on his part. 9. In view of the above, impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly quashed. It is however, made clear that for the purpose of seniority as also for consideration of regularization petitioner’s date of initial appointment shall be the date on which he attained 18 years of age and not any date prior to that. 10. Respondents are directed to issue fresh orders regarding seniority forthwith with such consequential action as is necessary in law. 11. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions. —————