This document cannot be accepted as a valid piece of evidence for more than one reason. Firstly, this document does not say when the petitioner got admitted into school and when he left the school that is in which year. Therefore, the document itself is incomplete. Secondly, as per this document, petitioner was born on 31.12.1969. This would mean that petitioner would have been around 7/8 years of age when he was in Class-II i.e., sometime in the year 1976/1977. This document was issued almost 20 years thereafter which raises grave suspicion about the bonafides of the document itself. Thirdly, if the date of birth (31.12.1969) was known to the petitioner as per this certificate dated 25.03.1995, it is not understood as to why this fact was not pleaded in the written statement or given in evidence, which is quite unusual. Fourthly, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the context of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit , reported in 1988 (supp) SCC 604 , the Head Master of the School ought to have been present before the Tribunal along with the school admission register to prove Ext-E as well as the contents thereof. In the absence of such testimony, Ext-E was not proved. Lastly, we
