Short Note : 1. The petitioner was employed as a beat-guard in the Forest Department. He was retired from 17th May 1971 on the footing that he had completed 55 years of age and had reached the age of superannuation. This order of retirement was passed on the ground that the date of birth of the petitioner was 7th July 1915. The petitioner protested. His case was that his date of birth was 26th August 1923. 2. The petitioner wants to continue in service till 26th August 1985 on the basis that his date of birth is 26th August 1923. The petitioner has produced the affidavit of his mother stating that this is correct date of birth and has produced a copy of an entry in a birth register in support of the affidavit, The petitioner, however, has not filed and rejoinder controverting the allegations made in the return by the State that the petitioner himself showed the school certificate and it was on that basis that the date of birth as 7th July 1915 was recorded in the service-book. The petitioner has also not stated on affidavit that he never studied in a school. In this state of affairs, it is not possible to accept the petitioner's contention that his correct date of birth is 26th August 1923 and not 7th July 1915 as was entered in his service-book. This Court wants to make it clear that this Court is not deciding here as to what is the correct date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner can file a Civil Suit for a declaration that his retirement is illegal on the basis that his date of birth is 26th August 1923, if he is so advised. All that this Court wants to say is that having regard to the controversy on the question of date of birth, it is not a fit question to be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition dismissed.