JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav and K.K. Birla, JJ. - The petitioner is Head Master in Basic Primary Pathshala, Lala Bazar, Fatehpur since July, 1981. According to his case, his date of birth was 7th August, 1930. But there appears to be some erasure in the admission form of the petitioner of the Municipal Junior High School, Lala Bazar, Fatehpur and his date of birth appears to be amended as 20th September, 1927 (vide Annexure-3 to the petition) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 1948 and in the service record his date of birth was shown as 20th September, 1927 and not 7th August, 1930. The petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 4, Education Superintendent, City Area, Fatehpur for the correction of his date of birth. On 28-1-1984 the said representation of the petitioner has been dismissed (Annexured-10 to the petition) with the observation that as the petitioner was taken in service in 1948, hence the date of birth cannot be corrected after such a long period. Further the date of birth of the petitioner was verified by the Executive Officer. Similarly the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari has also passed an order on the representation of the petitioner that the dale of birth once entered in the service book cannot be corrected. This appears to be the order, dated 27-12-1983. Thereafter the petitioner sent reminders about the correction of his date of birth, (reminders, dated 21-1-1986, 10-4-1986 and 6-10-1986 Annexures-11, 12 and 13 to the petition). 2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation made by him. The other relief is that the respondents may be directed to correct wrong entry of the date of birth in service record as 20th September, 1927. Reliance was placed on a decision in S.S.L. Srivastava v. Union of India and others, 1988 (1) UPLBLC (Trib) 49, (Central Administrative Tribunal) and Jagannath Sharma v. Union of India and others, 1987 (1) SLR 410, (Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh) and on Dr. Smt. Beenapai Dei v. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1269. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner we are of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and no direction can be issued directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. Smt. Beenapai Dei v. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1269. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner we are of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and no direction can be issued directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. The date of birth once entered in service record becomes final. The petitioner was taken in service in 1943 about 40 years back. Since than the petitioner being an educated person used to see his service record and he could have taken steps on for correction at any time immediately thereafter. But he did not do so, rather be felt satisfied. Further correction of date of birth means passing an order as provided under relevant service rules. The Government or any local body, i.e., Municipal Board, provides employment to any Assistant Teacher or other employee with the understanding that he would enter his date of birth and that is shown in the application form and the same date of birth is taken in the service book also. In case there is any rule that the date of birth can be corrected only then the same can be corrected In the relevant rules pertaining to Assistant Teachers or H ad Master of Basic Schools of the Municipal Board or otherwise, no provision has been shown by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the date of birth can be corrected. 4. There is no provision for correction of date of birth under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. In U.P. Recognised Basic School (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975, (for short Condition of Service Rules) under Rule 10 of Condition of Service Rules only mode of recruitment has been provided. There is no provision also under U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1980 (for short Teachers Service Rules). Under Rule 6 of Teachers Service Rules the candidate must have attained age of 18 years and not more than 30 years of the time of the appointment. Rule 28 provides sixty years age of retirement. There is no such provision under U.P. Basic Schools Teachers Service cum Insurance Rules, 1976. Rule 14 of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools, Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, only provides that a teacher shall retire after attaining sixty years of age. Rule 28 provides sixty years age of retirement. There is no such provision under U.P. Basic Schools Teachers Service cum Insurance Rules, 1976. Rule 14 of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools, Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, only provides that a teacher shall retire after attaining sixty years of age. No other provision was cited to indicate that there was any power for making change in date of birth. Under the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 there is no such provision that the date of birth can be changed and in the absence of any positive and specific provision in the rules and regulations we cannot assume that there was any power with the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner. 5. There is another rule known as U.P. Recruitment to Services Determination of Date of Births Rules, 1974 in which, even though not applicable to Junior High School Teachers, it has been provided that the date of birth once entered in the service record could not be corrected. 6. A bare reading of aforesaid rules make it clear that there is no provision for correction of date of birth of Junior High School teachers or Head Master. Although not very material but it appears pertinent to make a reference about the elementary principle of interpretation as contained in American Jurisprudence, Volume I (Sections 36-37, Page 838, 839) to the effect that the prime object of construction of laws and Statutory rules are to ascertain and carry out the detent of the Legislature. Courts them salve have no power to Legislature or amend the Act or rule, directly or indirectly by construction. It is for the Courts to ascertain and neither to add nor subs tract, delete or distort. (See Guisuppi v. Welling, 324 US 244; Darskay v Board of Regents, 317 US 442). It is further the judicial function to apply statutes or the rules what the Legislature has written and not what the Legislature might have written. (See Flaming thorite Citrus Esch, 358 US 153). 7. In short we can say that was said by Lord Reid in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Hinchy, 1960 AC 748 at Page 767 that what we must look for. (See Flaming thorite Citrus Esch, 358 US 153). 7. In short we can say that was said by Lord Reid in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Hinchy, 1960 AC 748 at Page 767 that what we must look for. is the intention of Legislature and we do not find it difficult to believe that Legislature intended the consequences which flow from the petitioners contention. We can only take the intention of Legislature from the words which they have used in the Act. 8. In the present case, under the relevant Acts, Rules and Regulations there is no provision that the date of birth once entered in the service records can be changed particularly after 40 years when the petitioner was at the verge of retirement after attaining the age of superannuation. The intention of Legislature is thus obvious that no change in the date of birth could be made hence we do not see any justification for granting the relief prayed for, in the present writ petition. 9. Reverting to the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Jagannalh Sharma v. Union of India and others, (supra) was a case where service rules of the railway employees were under consideration, they were the rules framed by the Central Government, whereas in the instant case we have the rules framed by the State Government in connection with the service cannon of Assistant Teachers, Head Masters and other employees of the Junior High Schools. Consequently any observation made by the Central Administrative Tribunal in connection with the service conditions of Central Government employees cannot be made applicable to the employees of the Basic Schools. In that case, however, in the School leaving certificate and University Certificate the date of birth was shown different than the date of birth actually entered. In the instant case the petitioner did not have any University Certificate. The petitioner also does not appear to have passed High School Examination nor he has obtained High School certificate as there is nothing to indicate to that effect on the record. The case of Jagammh Sharma v. Union of India and others, (supra), is therefore, of no assistance to petitioner. 10. Similarly, S.S.L. Srivastava v. Union of India, (supra) was a case decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal about the date of birth in the service card. But the same appears to have been mis-understood by the department. The case of Jagammh Sharma v. Union of India and others, (supra), is therefore, of no assistance to petitioner. 10. Similarly, S.S.L. Srivastava v. Union of India, (supra) was a case decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal about the date of birth in the service card. But the same appears to have been mis-understood by the department. In that case original service card clearly indicated both the dates as claimed by the petitioner. Hence in that case the petitioners claim was accepted. In the instant case 20th September, 1927 was shown in the service record and that remained so for about 40 years. The petitioner did not raise even a finger to get the same corrected earlier nor two dates of birth were shown in the Service Card as was in the case of S.S.L. Srivastava v. Union of India, (supra) consequently, this case also is besides the point petitioner. 11. Now reverting to the case of Smt. Beenupat Dei v. Stale of Orissa (supra) in that case some dale oi birth was entered in the service record. But later on that was corrected by the department without, affording any opportunity to the employee concerned. In that connection their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that in case the date of birth was noted and it was corrected by the department, but before carrying out that correction the employee concerned must have been afforded opportunity of hearing. There is no such aspect the present case. That date of birth as shown about 40 years back when the petitioner entered the service, continues to be the same. Consequently, we cannot derive any assistance nor the said case can be said to be applicable in the present case. 12. In view of the premises aforesaid, the present petition lacks merit and is dismissed summarily.