JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar, J. - In this writ petition the grievance of the petitioner is that the order of his retirement has been passed wrongly, inasmuch as his correct date of birth is 18.8.1936 and not 15.1.1930. 2. Affidavits have been exchanged in this case. 3. The petitioner was a chaukidar in Chet Ram Singh Inter. College. He was appointed on 1.4.1972. Originally the date of birth of the petitioner which was entered in his Service Book, was 15.1.1930. Subsequently his date of birth has noted as 18.8.1936 which was again struck off and original date of 15.1.1930 was re-entered. This is the basis of the grievance of the petitioner. 4. According to the petitioner the original entry of 15.1.1930 was made without there being any proof of Ids date of birth and it was not correct. In 1975 he was asked by the Principal (since retired) Sri Ram Pal Singh to bring the medical certificate in proof of his age, whereupon he appeared before the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Etah and got the certificate dated 18.8.1975 contained in Annexure-2. In this medical certificate, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, opined that on examination his age appeared to be 39 years. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, thereafter the Principal of the college ordered for correction of his date of birth on the basis of the medical certificate. Thus 18.8.1936 was noted as his correct date of birth after striking off the entry of 15.1.1930 earlier recorded in the Service Book. His stand is that on the basis of corrected date of birth, he is entitled to remain in service till 18.8.1996. Subsequently a notice was given to the petitioner contained in Annexure-1 dated 18.7.1988 to this effect that his correct date of birth was 15.1.1930 and as he is completing 60 years, his retirement is due in the month of January, 1990. 5. From the side of the opposite party No. 2 counter affidavits of the Head Clerk of the College, Sri N.P. Singh have been filed to this effect that the petitioner has submitted a medical certificate at his own instance without being asked to furnish the same by the deponent and on that basis there was inserted the date of birth of the petitioner as 18.8.1936 after striking off his original date of birth in his Service Book which was 15.1.1930. Thus this change in date having been effected in the service book in an unauthorised manner, it cannot be acted upon. And on the other hand the petitioner was to retire rightly on the basis of the entry of 15.1.1930. According to the contesting opposite party it is a case of unauthorised interpolation at the instance of the petitioner who had access to the service Book. In the counter affidavit it is further asserted that on coming to know about the interpolation the petitioner was called and he expressed his apology for the interpolation and thereafter the original date of birth, i.e., 15.1.1930 was restored in the service record of the petitioner. The assertions are denied by the petitioner in rejoinder affidavits. 6. Service Book of the petitioner has been placed before us from the side of the State for our perusal. In the Service Book original date of birth recorded was 15.1.1930, subsequently it was struck off and in place of it 18.8.1936 was recorded as date of birth. Thereafter the latter entry was cancelled and original date of birth, i.e., 15.1.1930 was re-entered. 7. Obviously the main controversy is as to what is the correct date of birth of the petitioner and whether change in date of birth in the service record of the petitioner from 15.1.1930 to 18.8.1936 was brought about by or under orders of the authority competent in that behalf. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted in support of the petitioners stand that the change in the date of birth was duly recorded under the order of the Ex-Principal and the petitioner would Produce evidence and may even examine the Ex-Principal as a witness. Further, there is another factual controversy between the contesting parties. It is on the point of actually giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before his changed date of birth 15.1.1930 was restored in the Service Book. It is thus obvious date of birth, i.e., the entry of 18.8.1936 was struck off and the original that in this case there are involved disputed questions of facts. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction will not enter into deciding these controversial questions of facts. The petitioner has got effective remedy available by filing a civil suit. 8. It is thus obvious date of birth, i.e., the entry of 18.8.1936 was struck off and the original that in this case there are involved disputed questions of facts. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction will not enter into deciding these controversial questions of facts. The petitioner has got effective remedy available by filing a civil suit. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there has been an utter violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as opportunity has not been afforded to the petitioner before issuing the order of his retirement in January, 1990. In case it is found as a fact that the petitioner has already been given opportunity of hearing before the changed date of 18.8.1936 was struck off and in its place the original date of 15.1.1930 was restored in the Service Book then it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 18.7.1988 of retirement has violated principles of natural justice. Further, if change in the date of birth in the Service Book of an employee of a college is made by a clerk of the college who is not authorised to make or order for such change, no obligation is placed on the Principal of the college to accept and act upon such change. On the other hand, in such situation the Head of the institution can make the employee to retire on the basis of the original date of birth recorded in the Service Book at the time of his appointment. In these circumstances the principle of natural justice does not stand violated as it is not necessary to give a show cause notice to the employee before making him to retire on the basis of the original entry of his date of birth. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.