M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent State of Karnataka. He was employed in the services of the government as Weaving Demonstrator in the year 1949. Soon after entry into service, his date of birth was recorded as 29-5-1924 in the service register. He has, however, averred that immediately thereafter he represented to the authorities that his date of birth had been wrongly shown in the service Register and the same required rectification. However, on the representation made on 5th June, 1975, the matter was referred to the solicitor and Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, and he in turn, appointed an Enquiry officer in terms of the provisions of the karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Enquiry Officer by his order dated 25-2 1979 rejected the claim of the petitioner for a change in the service register in relation to his date of birth. Thereafterwards, the 1st respondent-State of Karnataka by its Notification dated 25-4-1979 has determined the age of superannuation for the petitioner depending upon the entry made in the service register originally. Aggrieved by the said notification ordering his retirement as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has presented this writ petition, on several grounds inter alia contending that the findings of the Enquiry officer that the application was belated and made beyond the period prescribed under the Act and further that the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer had not been properly appreciated and the conclusions reached ought to have been in favour of the petitioner's date of birth being determined as 29-5-1932. The other contentions raised do not require to be noticed because they are relatable directly or indirectly to the second of the grounds mentioned above. ( 2 ) THE learned Government Pleader has made available the service register of the petitioner, In, the said register, on 7-5 1950 an entry relating to date of birth has been made showing the said date as 29 5 1924. In the column relating to the basis for that entry is shown as horoscope. ( 2 ) THE learned Government Pleader has made available the service register of the petitioner, In, the said register, on 7-5 1950 an entry relating to date of birth has been made showing the said date as 29 5 1924. In the column relating to the basis for that entry is shown as horoscope. It is significant also to notice that under the column "by the Hindu year" it is shown as 1846 "ds^j^do *o3^d ss^stia: 3l-" Before the Enquiry Officer appointed under the Act, the petitioner examined his parents and produced a number of documents, among which were the birth extracts of his elder brother and his sisters together with a transfer certificate from the School. ( 3 ) IT is better to take the second contention first and deal with the same. Under the Act proceedings before the enquiry Officer are said to be quasi-judicial proceedings for purposes of Sees. 193 and 228 of the I. P. C. The proceedings are essentially quasi-judicial in nature. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are produced as Ext-A to the petition. The Enquiry officer framed the following two issues :" (1) Whether the application dated 3-6- 1976 submitted by him is in time and the same is maintainable ? (2) Does he entitle for the correction of the date of birth as prayed for ?"he has recorded the findings on both the issues in the negative. The relevant portion of the order which touches upon the merits of the case on the evidence produced before the Enquiry Officer is found in paragraph 9 of the order. A perusal of that paragraph indicates that the documents produced by the petitioner himself in support of his case would give him three dates of birth different from one another. They are : 29-12-1924, 15-12- 1931 (based on the extract of birth register) and 29-5-1932 (based on the transfer certificate issued from a school at Melukote when he left that School ). He has also examined his parents and produced the birth extracts relating to his elder brother showing his date of birth as 18-6-1929 and that of his sisters showing as 27-10-1934 and 24-11-1937. The dates of birth of the sis'ters have no relevance while that of his brother who is claimed to be older than him appears to be relevant. He has also examined his parents and produced the birth extracts relating to his elder brother showing his date of birth as 18-6-1929 and that of his sisters showing as 27-10-1934 and 24-11-1937. The dates of birth of the sis'ters have no relevance while that of his brother who is claimed to be older than him appears to be relevant. The petitioner has failed to examine his brother himself as a witness in his own behalf. It is submitted that his brother also is in Government service. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the brother also has a service register to his credit. When the fact of his brother being in Government service was brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer, who apparently was confused much in appreciating the evidence, he should have summoned the service register relating to his brother and compared the same with the service register of the petitioner. The act casts the duty upon the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter of the determination of age of the person in detail. For reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not pressed this point before the enquiry Officer at all. On account of several contradictions in the evidence led by the petitioner and on account of letters of 'm. V. ' suspected to have been inserted in the School Transfer Certificate, the enquiry Officer chose to rely upon the entry made in the service register as the correct one. It has been in the evidence of the parents that no horoscope was maintained for their children. But, nevertheless, the entry made as far back as 1950 in the service register indicates that horoscope was the basis of the entry. Therefore, i do not see any error of law in the findings of the Enquiry Officer in placing greater reliance on the entry made in the service register in preference to the evidence adduced by the petitioner. Putting it in another way, by not noticing evidence which was not ptoduced before him. ( 4 ) SRI B. G. Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strongly urged before this court that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to examine his brother and prove his age once again before the Enquiry Officer. Putting it in another way, by not noticing evidence which was not ptoduced before him. ( 4 ) SRI B. G. Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strongly urged before this court that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to examine his brother and prove his age once again before the Enquiry Officer. However laudable that may be in the interests of justice, this Court must be strictly bound by the limits of its own jurisdiction under art. 226 of the Constitution. It is well settled principle of law that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot act as a court of appeal or as Civil Court and order a remand to record fresh evidence in the interests of justice. It is not in doubt that the petitioner had adequate opportunity of being heard in terms of the provisions of the Act. It is also not his grievance th at he was not given an opportunity to produce any evidence he wished to. On the evidence produced by him if he did not succeed, it is not open to this Court to give him a second opportunity which the act does not contemplate. Hence, the plea for such a direction cannot be countenanced. ( 5 ) THE other question relating to the findings by the Enquiry Officer that the application was barred by time, does not survive to be considered, in the view. I have taken that the finding of facts are not liable to be interfered with under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .