Judgment P.S. Mishra, J. The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing the order contained in annexure ‘3’, by which his representation for correction of entry of age in the service book has been rejected, and for a mandamus to correct the said entry in accordance with the age recorded in the Matriculation certificate (annexure-2). 2. The petitioner entered into the police establishment of the State of Bihar as a constable on 8.11.1951. In the service book prepared at that time, he was shown to have been born in the year 1927. Since he had not passed the Matriculation examination or any other equivalent examination, in the column for the said purpose he was shown as a non-matriculate. According to the petitioner he had already appeared as a regular student of H.E. High School, Jamorhi in the district of Bhojpur in the matriculation examination conducted by the Patna University in the year 1950. In the admit card of the said examination his date of birth was shown as born an 1.4.1932, The examination was held from 1.2.1950, but he failed to qualify. In the mean while recruitment to the police establishment in the constabulary was made on 8.10.1951. He applied and was selected. After entering into the service, however, he completed matriculation examination in the year 1960 and passed the examination conducted by the Bihar Secondary School Examination Board (which had succeeded the Patna University) in the second division. In the certificate of the said examination his date of birth was shown as 1.4.1932. He however, continued to serve in different capacities and in due course became a Sub-Inspector of Police. While he was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police, the Government of Bihar in the Home Department issued a circular dated 26.2.1976. The said circular stated, inter alia, that it was noticed that date of birth of the police officials were wrongly recorded in the service book in the cases in which mass recruitments were made. It also stated that the officials, who possessed matriculation certificate, showing the date of birth, could apply within one year from the said circular and get the wrong entry of the date of birth corrected. According to the petitioner he could not however, apply within the stipulated period in the said circular, as he was at a Muffassil station, where he could not know about the Government’s decision dated 26.2.1976. According to the petitioner he could not however, apply within the stipulated period in the said circular, as he was at a Muffassil station, where he could not know about the Government’s decision dated 26.2.1976. But when he came to know about it, he applied to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, who having looked into the certificate produced by him and the service book, vide D.O. No. 111/82 dated 21.1.1982 ordered for the correction of the petitioner from 1927 to 1.4.1932. The said order of the District Superintendent of Police, however, was cancelled by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, vide D.O. No. 798/1983 dated 29.4.1983. 3. The petitioner made a representation on 26.10.1983 praying for restoration of the order by which the entry of age in the service book had been corrected, on the ground, inter alia, that his date of birth as shown in the matriculation certificate was the correct date of birth and the service book was showing a wrong date of birth. 4. The Superintendent of Police, however, referred the representation of the petitioner to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration) which was eventually placed before the Inspector General of Police, Bihar and the Inspector General on 31.1.1984 rejected the petitioner’s representation stating that there was no provision for making a correction in the service book on the basis of the matriculation certificate obtained after entering the service. Following the said order of the Inspector General of Police, the petitioner was served with a notice of retirement from service with effect from the afternoon of 1.7.1985. 5. The petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7843 of 1985, praying therein that the order of Director General of Police be quashed. The said writ application, however, was dismissed in limine. The petitioner then moved a fresh representation before the Inspector General of police along with the admit card of the Patna University and the Secondary school certificate showing his death of birth as 1.4.1982. This representation also failed. He then moved this Court once again. A Bench of this Court on 8.11.1985 admitted this application to hearing. The same has now been placed for hearing before me. 6. Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules relates to correction of the date of birth of employees. This representation also failed. He then moved this Court once again. A Bench of this Court on 8.11.1985 admitted this application to hearing. The same has now been placed for hearing before me. 6. Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules relates to correction of the date of birth of employees. It enjoins that the actual date of birth or assumed date of birth as recorded in the service book cannot be altered, except in the case of a clerical error without the orders of the State Government. Note 1 under it states that no representation for rectification of mistake in the date of birth as entered in the record of service of a Government servant shall be entertained if it is not submitted within a period of ten years of the date of his entry into the Government service. The said rule fell for consideration before a Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Gobardhan Singh Vrs. The State of Bihar & Others. It was a case in which Gobardhan Singh, who was in the service of the State in the Finance Department, had represented for correction of his age recorded in the service book after the expiry of the said period of the years. The Government had issued a circular informing the Heads of the Department that the Government servants who question the correctness of the entry about the date of birth in the service book, could make representation any time before three years of superannuation. Gobardhan Singh, however, applied only a few months before his superannuation for correction of his date of birth. This Court has said that he, having not taken any step for correction of the date of birth in the service book as contemplated under rule 96 and the said circular of the Government, was not entitled to get his representation considered, as there was no obligation upon the State Government to do so. 7. A Division Bench of this Court, however, in Parmanand Ghosh Vs. 7. A Division Bench of this Court, however, in Parmanand Ghosh Vs. The State of Bihar & Others considered the case of a police official who moved the State Government for correction of his age in the service book after the period of ten years prescribed by rule 96 and even after the period of one year fixed by the circular, referred to above, and stated as follows- “With regard to the delay in filing the representation, the petitioner has stated that as he was working in the Moffasil area he was not aware of the Govt. decision that the representation should be filed by Feb, 1977, annexure ‘3’, the decision of the Govt. provides that this decision should be published in the Police Gazette and some news papers. In the counter affidavit it has only been stated that this communication was published in the Police Gazette. However, the date of publication in the Gazette nor the copy of the Gazette has been appended to the counter affidavit. There is also no averment in the counter affidavit that this notification was published in any of the local news papers. In that view, if the petitioner’s representation was filed beyond the period as provided in annexure-2, it was not reasonable to have rejected his representation on that technical ground”. The Bench also rejected the contention of the State that the authorities were right in rejecting the petitioner’s representation as he had signed the service book containing the entry about his age. Taking notice of the words in the circular of the State Government, that has acknowledged that quite often service book was signed by the person concerned in haste and it was in those circumstances that it was considered necessary that an opportunity should be given for correction of age in accordance with the matriculation certificate, in yet another judgment delivered on the same date the Bench reiterated the view expressed by it in Parmanand Ghosh’s case and delivered judgment upholding the claim of the petitioner, Ram Dular Singh, in C.W.J.C. No. 1139 of 1979. In the case of Niranjan Prasad Sinha Vrs. In the case of Niranjan Prasad Sinha Vrs. The State of Bihar and others a Bench of this Court considering a similar contention, took notice of the judgment in Parmanand Ghose’s case and yet another case and followed the view expressed in Parmanand Ghosh’s case and directed for the correction of the age of the petitioner of the said case in the service book. 8. Parmanand Ghose’s case and other case, including Nirnajan Prasad Sinha’s case (supra) were cases in which the petitioners had passed matriculation examination before entering the service. 9. In Murli Manohar Tiwary Vs. The State of Bihar & Others a Bench of this Court expressed that the benefit of the State Government’s decision to make representation and get the entry of the date of birth in the service book corrected could be availed of by a Government servant who had passed matriculation examination before his appointment. It is said in the judgment- “….In my opinion, if the aforesaid decision is made applicable even to the persons who have passed the Matriculation Examination while in service, in many cases it shall lead to absurd results. For example, a person who was Non-Matriculate on the date of his appointment may later appear at the Matriculation or an equivalent Examination, and may give a date of his choice. On the basis of that matriculation certificate, later he can claim that his date of birth in the service book be corrected. To avoid such situation, in the decision of the State Government itself, it was specifically mentioned that corrections are to make only in respect of such police officer, whose dated of birth in the service books at the time of their appointment were not entered in accordance with their matriculation certificates”. It has to be noted here that N.P. Singh, J. is a party to the judgment in Niranjan Singh’s case (supra) as well as in Murli Manohar Tiway’s case. It has to be noted here that N.P. Singh, J. is a party to the judgment in Niranjan Singh’s case (supra) as well as in Murli Manohar Tiway’s case. The consensus, therefore, is that once the case of a police officer falls in the category of those who were appointed in the mass recruitments of the constables and other officials, entry of the date of birth in the service book could not be taken as final unless they were made on the basis of the matriculation certificate, and although the circular of the State Government had fixed a time limit for making representation for correction on the basis of the matriculation certificate, representations made by police officers beyond the time fixed by the said circular could not be rejected on the ground that they had filed representation for correction beyond the time fixed by the circular if they could satisfy that they could not know the Government decision and the time limit for making representations. The caution that Murli Manohar Tiwari’s case introduced in the said field in one which deserves all respect. No one can deny that a person entering into the service could later decide to appear in Matriculation or any other equivalent examination and state a date of his choice for the purpose of future use; a Government servant including a police official could take advantage of such statement of date of birth by him for the purpose of matriculation or equivalent examination taken by him after his entering the service and derive advantage of correction in the entry of the date of birth in the service book. The rule, however, that a mistake in the date of birth could be corrected in accordance with the entry in the matriculation certificate is one which, I have already noticed above has taken notice of the fact that in the cases of mass recruitments mistake in the date of birth has occurred. Such mistakes could be true about those who had passed the matriculation examination before entering the service as well as those who had not passed the matriculation examination before entering the service as well as those who had not passed the matriculation examination when they entered the service. 10. Such mistakes could be true about those who had passed the matriculation examination before entering the service as well as those who had not passed the matriculation examination before entering the service as well as those who had not passed the matriculation examination when they entered the service. 10. It will be an artificial distinction drawn on the basis of a person passing the matriculation examination before entering the service and one who had not passed the matriculation examination if the rule as stated in the judgment of this Court in Murli Manohar Tiwary’s case (supra) is not read to mean that such genuine cases, where mistakes occurred in the service book would not be corrected unless the officer concerned was able to show that he had passed the matriculation examination before entering the service. 11. The instant case is one which may fall in that exception. The petitioner had appeared at the matriculation examination of the Patna University in February, 1950. In the admit card issued to him on 1.2.50 his date of birth was mentioned as 1.4.1932. He entered the service by the recruitment made in the year 1951 and in the service book his date of birth was shown as 1927. Subsequently he appeared in the Secondary Schools Examination conducted by the Bihar Secondary School Examination Board in the year 1960 and in the certificate issued by the Board his date of birth was shown as 1.4.1932. If there was a chance of a mistake in respect of the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book, and he could apply for correction thereof only because he had passed matriculation examination in the year 1960, it cannot be said that he disclosed the date of birth of his choice to benefit himself because he had already stated his date of birth, if at all he had him self stated, on 1.2.1950 or before that when he had applied and appeared at the matriculation examinations conducted by the Patna University. 12. Although the earlier application of the petitioner had been dismissed in limine a Bench found good reasons to admit application of the petitioner to hearing. In limine dismissal of the application of the petitioner even if it was for the same relief, cannot defeat the instant application on any ground of public policy or fair play. 13. 12. Although the earlier application of the petitioner had been dismissed in limine a Bench found good reasons to admit application of the petitioner to hearing. In limine dismissal of the application of the petitioner even if it was for the same relief, cannot defeat the instant application on any ground of public policy or fair play. 13. Courts have extended the principle embodied in Order 28 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution India and a Bench of this Court in Kishori Singh Vs. State of Bihar and the Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal have candidly stated the law that a petitioner who abandoned his claim or withdrew it without leave to sue afresh should not on the grounds of public policy be allowed to re agitate the same cause over and over again In Sarguja Transport service’s case the court has taken notice of law stated in Daryao Vs. State of U.P. in which it is stated.- “If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Art. 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court. We wish to make it clear that the conclusions thus reached by us are confined only to the point of res judicata which has been argued as a preliminary issue in these writ petitions and no other.” In Sarguja Transport Service’s case, Duryao’s case (supra) has been distinguished for the reasons of public policy and as mentioned above, the law has been clearly stated that in a case of withdrawal of a writ application, unless it is shown that the earlier petition had been withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition, the court should not allow a repetition. 14. It has been stated more than once by the Supreme Court and this Court that any justiciable issue in a writ petition should not be rejected without assigning reasons, yet instances are many that writ applications are rejected with one word order “dismissed” Such orders as pointed out by the Supreme Court and this Court do not satisfy the requirements of a speaking order in a judicial proceeding. 15. 15. This case, in my view, is not one in which it can be said, particularly when there were many judgments deciding there questions one way or the other by this court that it did not deserve a consideration. 16. Having considered the case and the contentions raised before me, I have no hesitation in holding that petitioner’s representation was not considered in accordance with law by the respondents, The order contained in annexure ‘10’ is not sustainable in law and it is, accordingly, quashed. 17. It, however, is not a case in which this Court can issue mandamus to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book. As such correction will require satisfaction as to the correctness of the statement of the petitioner about the correctness of the date of birth in the admit card of the Patna University, the respondents can legitimately verify its correctness from the Patna University and satisfy themselves about the same. 18. In the result the application is allowed. The orders contained in annexure ‘10’ is quashed and the case is remitted to respondent no.2 (Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar) for a re-consideration in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.