Saikia, J.- The writ petitioner herein challenges the order No. E/3 542 dated 28.7.74 whereby he was retired from railway ser­vice on and from 22.7.74 rejecting his claim to be retired only after 10.10.1976. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 11.10.1936 as a Trolley-man in the then Eastern Bengal Railway end on 7.12.1954 was promoted as Permanent Way Mistri; and in 1973 he was working at Mazbat, Darrang in the N.F. Railway. His date of birth was admittedly recorded at the time of his appointment as 12th June, 1915, which the petitioner says was done without his knowledge and he learnt about it from a seniority list which was circulated by the District Manager, N. F. Railway, Bongaigaon under his Memo No. 504-E/12 (S&Y) dated 9.12 66. Petitioner submitted a protesting representation on 19.1.67 to the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon pointing out that his correct date of birth was 12th June, 1921, which was supported by an Affidavit sworn by his father on 25.11. 1966. This as well as a subsequent representation were not replied to when the Divisional Superintendent, N.F. Railway. Alipurduar Junction by his order No. EM/I dated 30 5.73 directed him to retire with effect from 12.6.73. The petitioner submitted another application to the Divisional personnel Officer, N.F. Railway. Alipurduar pointing out that as far back as in 1966 he intimated the Railway Authorities that his date of birth in the service book ought to be corrected as 12.6.1921 instead of 12.5.1915 which was also the certified that for his Life Insurance. On 8.6.1973 he wrote again to the Chief Engineer, Alipurduar Junction that he was to retire from 12.6.1979 and not from 12.6.73 but without any reply. It was only on 11-7.73 that the Chief Personnel Officer, N.F. Railway intimated him that the petiti­oner was considered to have retired from 12'6.73. where­upon the petitioner filed a writ application, being Civil Rule No. 387 of 1973. in the Gauhati High Court which was dismissed on 31.8.73 observing that the Court did not find that any circumstance had been produced before General Manager to show that a wrong date of birth came to be entered in the service record and that since no prim a facie case for correction of the entry was disclosed in the application, there was no wonder that the petitioner did not receive any response from the authority. Obviously the affidavit dated 25.11.66 was already there. Ordinarily this should have been the end of the controversy; but the petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation to the General Manager, N. F. Railway, Maligaon and to his relief by order dated 16.11.73 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer in Memo No, 214-E/3(E) directed the petitioner to resume his duties immediately which he did ft cm 15.2.74. The said order reads as follows :- "No.214 E/3(E) Dated 16.11.73 To The DS(P)/APDJ Sub:- Representation from Shri Mahabir Choudhury PWH/MJBT regardiag his date of birth. Since the employee's date of birth as entered in the original service records cannot be correctly ascertained, it has been held that there is no proper entry of his date of birth. After considering various aspects of the case, it bas been decided that the date of birth of the above named should be recorded as 11.10. 1918. He may be allowed to resume duties immediately treating the intervening period of his unemployment as leave due and admissible under the relevant rules by which he is gover­ned. His P/case and S/sheets as received under your letter No. FM/1/73 dated 26.10.73 are returned. Please acknowledge receipt. Encl : 1. S/Sheet Contg. 24 pages 2. P/case contg. 436 excluding 9 P. For Chief Personnel Officer Copy to : Shri Mahabir Choudhury, PWH/MJBT in office for information. For Personnel Officer." 3. While the petitioner was performing his duties after resumption he received the impugned order in Memo. No. E/3-542 dated 28.7.74 issued by P.W.I. N. F. Railway. Mazbat addressed to the petitioner which read : "As per DS/P/APDJ's above letter you are hereby retired from service on and from 22.7.74 F. N. Hence your sick period cannot be granted as leave from this end." The petitioner submitted a representation on 30.7.74 b:-fore the General Manager, N.F. Railway pointing out that his date of birth was already determined by the Railway Autho­rity as 11.10.1918 and as such he ought to be allowed to continue in service till October, 1976. After several reminders, only on 3.9.74 the impugned order in Memo No. 214-H/3(E) from the General Manager, N. F. Railway was received inform­ing that the petitioner's appeal had been rejected, but no grounds whatsoever for rejection were indicated. Hence this petition. 4. Mr. After several reminders, only on 3.9.74 the impugned order in Memo No. 214-H/3(E) from the General Manager, N. F. Railway was received inform­ing that the petitioner's appeal had been rejected, but no grounds whatsoever for rejection were indicated. Hence this petition. 4. Mr. N. N. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Railway Authorities determined the date of birth as 11.10.1918, it could not be changed unilaterally without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. Mr. A. R. Barua, the learned counsel for the N. F. Railway Administration counters submitting that the said determination of the petitioner's date of birth as 11.10.1918 (Annexure VIII) was not done according to the rules by any competent authority and under Rule 145 of the Railway Establishment Code the General Manager, N. F. Railway as the competent authority could revise the said order without any notice and the petitioner could not make any grievance of it. 5. A reference 10 Rule 145 may be relevant at this stage, and is quoted here under :- "145. Date of birth (1) 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 literate 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 Class III railway servant and witnessed by another rail­way servant. (2) (a) When the year and 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. (b) When a person entering service is unable to give hit 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, 1938, and if on that date bis age was stated to be 18, his date of birth should betaken as 1st January, 1920. (c) Where the person concerned is unable to state his age, it should be assessed by a Railway Medical Officer and the age so assessed entered in his record of service in the manner prescribed above, the railway servant being infromed of the age so recorded and his confirmation obtained thereto. (3) The 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 a gazetted railway servant and a General Manager in the case of a non-gazetted railway servant to cause the date of birth to be altered. (i) Where in his opinion it had been falsely stated by the railway servant to obtain an advantage 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 ordi­narily be submitted within a reasonable time after joining service) of the circumstances in which the wrong come to be entered is furnished by the railway servant concerned, together with the statement of any previ­ous attempts made to have the records amended. 6. It is admitted that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 12.6.1915 and that record continued till it was purported to be corrected as 11.10.1918 by Memo No. 214E/3(E) dated 16.11.73 (Annexure VII) Record of the date of birth, namely, 12.6.1915 was also accepted by the High Court and till then the Court did not find (hat any circums­tance had been produced before the General Manager, to show that it was wrongly recorded and required correction. The affidavit sworn by the petitioner's father is dated 25.11.66. The Divisional Superintendent, N. F. Railway, Alipurduar Junc­tion in his letter No. 214-E/3) E) dated 11.7.73(Annexure V) clearly informed the petitioner that the Chief Personnel officer had decided that there was no scope for alteration of the petitioner's date of birth at that stage. The petitioner has not annexed any copy of his application submitted after his petition was dismissed by the High court. He has annexed a copy of the father's affidavit. The petitioner has not annexed any copy of his application submitted after his petition was dismissed by the High court. He has annexed a copy of the father's affidavit. Be that as it may, the order at Annexure VII No. 214 E/3(E) dated 16.10.73, which is of the nature of an inter-departmental communication, shows that the date of birth was corrected as 11.10, 1918 and the petiti­oner was also consequently allowed to resume his duties and he continued until the order No. E/3-542 dated 28.7.74. was received by him. The petitioner having not placed the materi­als which he may have placed before the Railway Adminis­tration leading to purported correction of his date of birth as 11.10.1918. ex-fade the order of correction (Annexure VII) was sent by the Chief Personnel Officer who is not the com­petent authority under Rule 145 of the Railway Establishment Code to the DS(P)/APDJ, of course, with information to the petitioner. Mr. Barua submits that this order was placed be­fore the General Manager who refused to approve the correc­tion as there were no materials to support it and it was passed without noticing the earlier decisions on the subject. The petitioner was informed so by letter dated 3.9.74. Mr. Saikia has no materials to the contrary. Even so, the question arises whether the order could be cancelled without notice to the petitioner. In other words, whether the cancellation was done unilaterally in violation of the principle of 'audi alteram partem' It is admitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner be­fore cancellation of the order. 7. Rule 145 envisages the different eventualities in the matter of disputes regarding the date of birth of a railway employee and prescribes the procedures for determination. Under sub-rule(3) the 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. But in case of a non-gazetted railway servant a General Manager can cause the date of birth to be altered as provided therein. A satisfactory explanation for correction should ordinarily be submitted within a reasonable time. In the instant case the petitioner having joined his service in 1936 and repre­sented his case in 1957 can by no standard be said to have represented within reasonable time. In Bhupindra Nat ft Chatterjee vs. State of Bihar, 1977 3 S CC. A satisfactory explanation for correction should ordinarily be submitted within a reasonable time. In the instant case the petitioner having joined his service in 1936 and repre­sented his case in 1957 can by no standard be said to have represented within reasonable time. In Bhupindra Nat ft Chatterjee vs. State of Bihar, 1977 3 S CC. 491 where the petitioner in one of his applications admitted the date of birth to he 1.1.1908, held, he could not claim his date of birth to be 16.11.1908. The date birth of specified in the official records, mentioned in the service book, stated in the Civil list and admitted to be correct in one of the applications by the petitioner was not altered. 8. The petitioner's recorded date of birth could be corrected to his prejudice only after enquiry giving him opportunity to explain, as was ruled in State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and in AIR 1959 A & H 259 Mohan Ch. Das vs. Director, State Transport. Though the order of correction of date of birth is administrative in character, as it involves civil consequences it must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice, after informing the affected employee of the case of the railway administration, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the employee of being heard and meeting or explaining those evi­dence. It stands to reason that an employee also must place before the employer all his evidence in support of his claim of correction of his date of birth to his advantage and to his employer's disadvantage. If after or without such an enquiry the employer acts arbitrarily or capriciously, the writ court can interfere, but is discretionary in cases involving enquiry into complicated facts. The Court will not sit in appeal over the order and will not substitute its own judgment for that of the competent authority. It can interfere where it appears that the order was passed on collateral consideration and or in violation of principles of natural justice or is founded on no evidence ( AIR 1971 SC 1093 ). In the instant case the petitioner's date of birth was purportedly corrected by the Chief Personnel Officer on what materials not known. When the General Manager refused to approve and cancelled it. In the instant case the petitioner's date of birth was purportedly corrected by the Chief Personnel Officer on what materials not known. When the General Manager refused to approve and cancelled it. There was no necessity to give similar opportunity to the petitioner, it being in course of official process. This was not necessary for two other reasons- The Annexure VII is in the nature of an inter-departmental communication with copy to the petitioner and as such, may not have been final so as to finally create any right in favour of the petitioner. Secondly, it was not passed by any authority competent under the rules. True, that the petitioner was retained in service beyond the due date of his retirement according to his original date of birth but it could not confer any right to continue till the due date according to the date corrected without authority- There being no such right, the exercise of the power by the General Manager in cancelling that order can be upheld on the prin­ciples that if the exercise of a power can be traced to an existing power even though that power was not purported to have been exercised under certain circumstances, the exercise of the power can be upheld on the strength of an undisclosed but undou­bted power- As was held in AIR 1980 SC 1461 R.R. Verma vs. The Union of India, any Government must be free to alter its policy or its decision in administrative matters, though of course they are bound to obey all statutory requirements and also observe the principles of natural justice where rights of parties may be affected, If administrative decisions are reviewed, the reviewed decisions are subject to judicial scrut­iny as the original ones were. Indeed, as was observed in Khudiram vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 550 , in a Government of laws there is nothing like unfettered discre­tion immune from judicial review ability. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner being bound by his recorded date of birth, his earlier writ petition being dismissed and he having failed to place any additional material before this Court- I find no justification for any interference, parti­cularly when the correction was made by an authority not competent under the rules, and not according to rules. 10. The application is accordingly rejected; the rule disch­arged. Parties are left to bear their own costs.