JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for correcting his date of birth as noted in the service record. It is the case of the petitioner that he passed the matriculation examination held in 1948 under the Dhaka Board and his age was noted in such matriculation certificate. The certificate was issued to the petitioner on 5th November, 1949. The petitioner entered the service of Calcutta Police on 5th May, 1950 and it an admitted case that the petitioner made a declaration of his date of birth as on 25th April, 1931 at the time of entry in service and he had also declared that he was a matriculate. On 30th April, 1988 namely, one year before his retirement the petitioner was informed by the administration that he would be retiring with effect from 30th April, 1989. He was, therefore, requested to call at the office of the Reserve Officer with documents mentioned therein for the purpose of completing his post retirement papers. The petitioner chose not to take any action for correction of his age even then and only on 28th November, 1988, he made an application for correction of his age on the footing that so far he could recollect himself declared his age at the time of entry in the service but such declaration was not correctly made by him. He, therefore, made a prayer for correcting his age on the basis of matriculation certificate and such prayer was considered by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Calcutta and by an order made on 4th March, 1989, such representation was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. It was stated in the said order of the Deputy Commissioner that he was appointed a temporary Constable on 5th May, 1950 by showing his date of birth as 25th April, 1931 and although he had the matriculation certificate in his possession, he did not produce the same and deliberately suppressed the date of birth as noted in the matriculation certificate because otherwise he could not have got the appointment of Police Constable since he did not attain the required minimum age for such appointment. The petitioner has contended before this Court that a Government employee can make the application for correction of his age at any point of time prior to his retirement and if it can be established by him that his age in the service record was not correct such correction can be made. In support of his contention, reliance has been made of a decision made in the case of (1) Sisu Ranjan Das v. The Commissioner of Police & Ors. reported in 1979(2) Cal LJ 428 and also a decision made in the case of (2) Pramatha Nath Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal reported in 1981(1) SLR 570. It appears to me that the petitioner himself made a declaration of his age at the time of entry in service and derived a benefit of getting an appointment as Police Constable which otherwise he could not have got if the alleged correct age was declared by him. It is quite apparent that at the time of getting appointment the petitioner was a matriculate and matriculation certificate was with him. The petitioner on his own showing having derived a benefit out of his own wrong cannot be permitted to deprive further premium on such wrong by extending his tenure of service by getting the age corrected. In my view, the writ Court is a court of equity and unless the petitioner come with a clean hand the writ Court is not always bound to interfere because the exercise of the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and is not always a must. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (3) A.M. Allison v. B.L. Sen and Ors. reported in AIR 1957 SC 227 . The Deputy Commissioner of Police has rejected the prayer for correction of the age on the ground that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed alleged correct date of birth at the material time in order to get the Government employment fully knowing that he could not have got such appointment if the correct age was declared by him. It may also be noted in this connection that the age recorded in matriculation certificate is not always a conclusive proof of correct age. It may also be noted in this connection that the age recorded in matriculation certificate is not always a conclusive proof of correct age. The matriculation certificate is usually a document containing the age declared by the guardian of a student at an early age and therefore should be given due importance as a good piece of evidence as to the age of a person concerned. But such declaration by the guardian may be wrong and in an appropriate case a person cannot be disentitled in proving his correct age on the satisfaction of the concerned authority that the age as recorded in matriculation certificate was not correct. Despite the age recorded in the matriculation certificate, the petitioner chose not to accept such age as correct and made declaration of his date of birth at the time of entry in service. The petitioner was not illiterate at the time of entry in service and it is also not the case of the petitioner that his age was recorded by some other person without his knowledge. It must also be noted that during his long tenure of service, the petitioner did not make any attempt to get his age corrected. It was only when the petitioner was informed that he would retire on superannuation soon and as such he would provide relevant papers for his post retirement benefits, the petitioner made a representation after a few months of such communication to correct his age on the basis of matriculation certificate. If in such circumstances, the representation of the petitioner has not been accepted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, by accepting the age declared by him at the time of entry in service in preference to age recorded in matriculation certificate the impugned action does not warrant interference by the writ Court both on the ground of equity and also on merits. In the facts of the case, the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel of the petitioner are clearly distinguishable and the same do not come in aid of the petitioner. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed without, however, any order as to cost.