Judgment G.G. Sohani, C.J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated the 6th November, 1989, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6279 of 1989. 2. The material facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows :- (i) The writ petitioner (respondent no. 1 in this appeal) is a member of the Superior Judicial Service in the State of Bihar. He passed the matriculation examination in the year 1947 and his date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate, issued by the appellant University, is the 12th January, 1932. Accordingly, the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation on 11th January, 1990. (ii) The petitioner did not approach the High Court or the State Government for correction of his date of birth in the service record but he made a representation to the appellant University and contended that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the matriculation certificate and that instead of 12th January, 1932, the date of birth should have been entered as 12th January, 1935. (iii) Rule 57 of the Patna University Syndicate Rules (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) provides as follows :- “The age of a student based on the School records as certified by the Headmaster of the School in the matriculation application form is accepted as the age for entry in the University record and no subsequent change will be permitted.” In the matriculation application form submitted by the petitioner the Headmaster had certified that the petitioner was born on 12th January, 1932. It was on the basis of that certificate that the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate issued by the appellant University was 12.1.1932. Respondent no. 2, Controller of Examination, of the appellant University, therefore, intimated to the petitioner on 20th June, 1989, vide letter no. 5430/Exam. (Annexure 1 to the write petition) as follows :- "With reference to your application dated 9.2.89 on the above subject, I am to inform you that under rules the date of birth on the basis of the examination application form duly certified by the Headmaster is accepted as the age for entry of the University record and no subsequent change will be permitted. Your age as certified by the Headmaster in the examination application form is 12th January, 1932." (iv) The petitioner thereupon filed a petition before this Court on 13th July, 1989, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impleading the University, the Controller of Examination and the Principal of the Gandhi Multipurpose School, Nawadah. The petitioner contended that his date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate was incorrect, that the date of birth recorded in the school register was 12th January 1935 and that the appellant University be, therefore, directed to correct the date of birth as entered in the matriculation certificate and issue a fresh matriculation certificate to the petitioner. The petition was resisted by the appellant University, inter alia on the ground that the age of the petitioner, as certified by the Headmaster of the school in the matriculation application form, was entered in the matriculation certificate issued to the petitioner on 12th January, 1949, and that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief prayed for. (v) During the course of heading before the learned single Judge an affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 3, the Principal of the school, by the head clerk of the school, that Annexure 3 was the extract of the admission register of the school, which was produced before the Court, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 12th January, 1935. In Annexure 3', purporting to be a true extract of the admission register of the school, it has been shown that the petitioner was admitted to Class V of the school on 12th January, 1940, and that his date of birth was 12th January, 1935. Thus, according to Annexure 3', the petitioner was admitted to Class V of the school at the age of 5 years. The learned single Judge held that this school record should prevail over the certificate given by the then Headmaster of the school to the appellant University and that the claim of the petitioner for correcting the matriculation certificate was completely justified. The learned single Judge, therefore, directed the appellant University to issue a fresh matriculation certificate containing the corrected date of birth as 12th January, 1935. The learned single Judge further observed as follows :- “... The learned single Judge, therefore, directed the appellant University to issue a fresh matriculation certificate containing the corrected date of birth as 12th January, 1935. The learned single Judge further observed as follows :- “... This corrected certificate will now form the basis of the date of birth of the petitioner wherever and whenever his age becomes an issue for any purpose whatsoever and all concerned departments, officers and authorities should correct the records relating to the petitioner's date of birth...” Aggrieved by this judgment the University has flied this appeal. 3. Shri Mahto, learned Advocate-General, appearing for the University contented that while issuing the aforesaid direction the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that the State Government and the High Court were not parties to the writ petition, and that no direction should have been issued binding these parties when they were not impleaded by the petitioner it was also contended that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that in accordance with the rules of the Syndicate the University had issued the matriculation certificate recording that age which was certified by the Headmaster of the school in the application form submitted by the petitioner at the time of matriculation examination, that no duty was cast on the University to adjudicate the question regarding correct date of birth of the petitioner and that the University, therefore, could not be held to have failed to do its duty according to law. It was further contended that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that the extract of the school register (Annexure 3) relied upon by the learned single Judge was ex facie unreliable because howsoever intelligent the petitioner might have been, he could not have been admitted in Class V of the school at the of 5 years only. It was contended that the admission register of the school, which the petitioner claimed to have attended prior to his admission to the Nawadah school was not produced. It was contended that the admission register of the school, which the petitioner claimed to have attended prior to his admission to the Nawadah school was not produced. Our attention was invited to the application form (Annexure A) submitted by the petitioner while appearing at the matriculation examination, the particulars filled in by him at the time of examination and Annexure All, the Photostat copy of the list of candidates appearing at the matriculation examination in the year 1947 furnished by the Headmaster of the school, along with the application forms of the candidates, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was shown to be 12th January, 1932. It was urged that the learned single Judge did not even refer to all these documents on the basis of which the appellant University had entered the date of birth in the matriculation certificate issued to the petitioner on 12th January, 1949, and that in any event general direction could not have been issued to all the authorities, who were not impleaded in the writ petition, to correct their records relating to the petitioner's date of birth. 4. In reply, Shri Basudeo Prasad, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent, contended that the learned single Judge was justified in relying on the' extract of the school register and that he had not committed any error in directing the University to issue a fresh matriculation certificate. As regards the general, direction given by the learned single Judge that the age recorded in the fresh matriculation certificate, to be issued by the University in accordance with the direction of this Court, should hereafter form the basis of the date of birth of the petitioner wherever and whenever his age was in question, learned counsel contended that that direction was not necessary, but it was stated that, that direction was given by the learned single Judge only with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It was also contended that the appeal was not presented by the authorised person that it was not accompanied by a typed copy of the judgment as required by the rules of this Court and that the appeal, therefore, deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. The appellant being a statutory authority would no doubt be amenable to writ jurisdiction but it can be directed to do only that which it is required to do according to the provisions of law. Any action by the appellant University would be also liable to be struck down, if it is shown that the appellant University has acted contrary to the provisions of law or arbitrarily. In the instant case, no provision of law or rule was brought to our notice which required the University to adjudicate after holding an enquiry into the question of date of birth of a candidate. The date of birth entered in the matriculation certificate issued by the appellant University to the petitioner on 12th January, 1949 was on the basis of the age as certified by the Headmaster of the school in the matriculation application form (Annexure ‘A’) submitted by the petitioner. This was in accordance with rule 57 of the Rules (Annexure 5). No provision of law or any rule was brought to our notice which casts a duty on the appellant University to make any further enquiry before accepting the age as certified by the Headmaster in the matriculation application form as the age for entry in the University record. The appellant University cannot, therefore, be held to have acted illegally or arbitrarily. The learned single Judge has held that the appellant was bound to correct the entry regarding the date of birth in the matriculation certificate issued to the petitioner in view of the representation made to it by the petitioner about 35 years after the issue of the certificate and that on the basis of the school record as evidenced by the extract (Annexure 3) produced before the learned single Judge, the appellant - University could be directed to issue a fresh certificate. The learned single judge, with respect, failed to appreciate that all that was laid down by the relevant rule 57 was that the appellant was required to accept the age for entry in the University record which was certified by the' Headmaster of the school. The learned single judge, with respect, failed to appreciate that all that was laid down by the relevant rule 57 was that the appellant was required to accept the age for entry in the University record which was certified by the' Headmaster of the school. If, according to the petitioner the certificate issued by the Headmaster (Annexure 'A') was not based on the school record, then the petitioner could have persuaded his employer the State not to act on the entry regarding his age as recorded in the matriculation certificate but to act on other reliable evidence and if the authorities had refused to accede to that request, he could have sought appropriate relief against them by proving his date of birth by adducing reliable evidence in that behalf. The University was not the proper forum to adjudicate this dispute. Moreover, assuming that the University had the jurisdiction to enquire into the correct date of birth, it could not be directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner by giving a finding in that behalf merely on the basis of production of Annexure 3'. Mere production of the school record by the head clerk of the school cannot be held to be sufficient to prove the correct date of birth. In this connection the following observations of the Supreme Court in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 1796 at page 1806) are pertinent :- ".......The date of birth mentioned in the scholar's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined.' The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. If entry in the scholar's register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by the parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value. Merely because the documents Exs.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Merely because the documents Exs.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were proved, it does not mean that the contents of documents were also proved. Mere proof of the documents Exs.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the correctness of date of birth stated in the documents... ..." The learned single Judge, in my opinion, erred in holding that mere production of school record was proof of the correctness of the date of birth stated in Annexure 3. Even assuming that the petitioner was a precocious child, who could have been admitted to Class V at the age of 5 years, as stated in Annexure 3', there was no material whatsoever on record to prove the contents of Annexure 3'. In any event, the appellant University could not have been directed to correct its record and to issue a fresh matriculation certificate to the petitioner on the basis of Annexure 3'. Such a direction cannot be sustained in law. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner against the appellant University cannot be converted into a suit for declaration where a finding regarding the date of birth of the petitioner can be given in the absence of the parties which would be affected by that finding. The proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution commenced by the petitioner against the University alone were, in my opinion, misconceived. 6. As regards the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent that the appeal was not properly presented, it bas come on record that the appeal was presented by a lawyer who had Signed the 'Vakalatnama' along with his senior whose name appears in the 'Vakalatnama'. The defect, if any, is not fatal. The other defect, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, was that a typed copy of the judgment was not filed along with the appeal. I find from the record that the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a Photostat copy of the judgment. According to the rules of the Court, a letters patent appeal should be accompanied by a typed copy of the judgment. The irregularities pointed out on behalf of the respondent in presentation of the appeal are not, in my opinion, sufficient to justify dismissal of the appeal on that ground. 7. According to the rules of the Court, a letters patent appeal should be accompanied by a typed copy of the judgment. The irregularities pointed out on behalf of the respondent in presentation of the appeal are not, in my opinion, sufficient to justify dismissal of the appeal on that ground. 7. For all these reasons the appeal is allowed, the judgment dated 6th November, 1989, passed by the learned single Judge, is set aside and the respondents writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is dismissed. No order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. L.P.A. allowed.