JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner who was Head Constable, Armed Police and was posted at Police Training Centre, Sitapur has by means of the petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, challenged his retirement from service. It is contended by him that at the time of entry into service In 1951 he had given out his age as 22 years and, therefore, his year of birth would be 1929 and not 1926. 2. It has been stated by the opposite parties in the counter affidavit that the petitioner who was enrolled on 21951 had, no doubt, stated that he was 22 years of age but he was reported by the Civil Surgeon to be a man of 25 years at the time of enlistment and, therefore, his date of birth was mentioned as 21926 in the character roll on which petitioner's left thumb impression as also his signatures were taken. He was, therefore, rightly retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 30984. 3. By an order dated 6884 the Standing Counsel was directed to, produce the service record before the court. It has been produced before us and we have looked into it. The relevant entries with regard to thepetitioner's age on the first page of the service book are as under : Age on enlistment as stated by recruit 22 years as certified by Civil Surgeon : 25 years as fixed by S.P. : 25 years (original entry ''22' years has been> scored out and n its place the figure 25 years has. been written in a. different ink) 4. Above these entries is written 21st September, 1926 in art entirely different ink and not in the ink in which all other entries have been. made. Even the petitioner's signature are in the original ink and not in the ink in which 21st September 1926 has been written or the figure 25 years has been written. 5. U. P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth), Rules, 1974, as amended in 1980, provides as under : 2. made. Even the petitioner's signature are in the original ink and not in the ink in which 21st September 1926 has been written or the figure 25 years has been written. 5. U. P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth), Rules, 1974, as amended in 1980, provides as under : 2. The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government service or where a Government servant has not passed any such, examination as aforesaid or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in his. service book at the time of his entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to his service, including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever. 6. The Rule quoted above speaks of three categories of employees : (i) Employees who had already passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of entry into service. (ii) Employees who had not passed the High .School or equivalent examination. (iii) Employees who have passed the High School or equivalent examination after joining the service. 7. In respect of the employees of the first category, the date of birth recorded in the High School Examination Certificate or the Certificate of the equivalent examination is to be treated as final while in respect of the employees of the second and third categories, the age or the date of birth recorded in the service book is to be treated as correct and final. The Rule further provides that an application or representation for correction or such date of birth or age shall not be entertained in any circumstance whatsoever. This rule is equally binding on the employer or the appointing authority. It is implicit in the rule that the appointing authority also cannot alter or change the age or the date of birth of an employee at his volition or by his unilateral act. He has to treat the recorded age or date of birth as correct for all purposes including superannuation. It is implicit in the rule that the appointing authority also cannot alter or change the age or the date of birth of an employee at his volition or by his unilateral act. He has to treat the recorded age or date of birth as correct for all purposes including superannuation. The appointing authority cannot alter the date of birth or the age of an employee at his sweetwill so as to advance or postpone the date of superannuation of such employee. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner had given out his age at the time of entry into service as 22 years which was also recorded in the service book. Even the Superintendent of Police had fixed his age as 22 years although he was reported by the Civil Surgeon to be 25 years of age. But the entry made by the S. P. which indicated that the petitioner was 22 years of age at the time of his recruitment, was scored out and substituted by the figure 25 years. Since the petitioner had given out his age as 22 years at the time of entry into service, which was also recorded in the service book, there was no occasion for the authorities to alter that age unless the petitioner was given an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed alteration. It is not clear from the record or from the counter affidavit as to when the alteration was made. The petitioner, in any case, cannot be retired from service on the basis of the altered date of birth without his having been provided with an opportunity to show cause against proposed alteration in his age and date of birth. 9. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Mist) Binapanr Dei. AIR 1967 SC 1269 in which also the question of date of birth was involved, has held that even an administrative order has to comply with' the principles of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing has to be given before such an order can be made. In Luxmi Narain Vs. Dr. (Mist) Binapanr Dei. AIR 1967 SC 1269 in which also the question of date of birth was involved, has held that even an administrative order has to comply with' the principles of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing has to be given before such an order can be made. In Luxmi Narain Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1977 (1) SLR 44 , the Rajasthan High Court, following the above Supreme Court decision, bad held that where there was an interpolation or entry relating to the date of birth, the appointing authority was competent to make an enquiry to find out the correct date of birth but such an enquiry had to be made in consonance with the rules of natural justice (see also : Sardar Dewan Singh Vs. Union of India and another, 1977 (2) SLR 793 and Shariful Hasan Vs. State of U. P. and others 1982, U. P. Service Cases 428). 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and theimpugned order on the basis of which the petitioner has been retired from, service which is contained in Annexure no. 3 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service till he attains the age of 58 years on the basis that he was 22 years of age in 1951 when he was recruited in service. If, however, it is proposed to alter his date of birth so as to retire him earlier, he should be given an opportunity of hearing. There will be no order as to costs. (Petition allowed)