JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. - According to the petitioner he was appointed as a Cashier in Punjab National Bank Rampur by the Treasurer of the Bank The petitioner on 12-10-1983 was intimated by the Bank that his date of birth as recorded in his service record was 20-12-1923 and thus he will retire from service on 31-12- 1983. T he petitioner in this writ petition has however, contended that in the High School Certificate his date of birth has been recorded as 1-7-1927 and thus, the order passed by the respondents dated 12-10-1983 asking the petitioner to retire from the service on 31-12-1983, is liable to be quashed. 2. It may be stated that at the time of the admission of the writ petition, a Bench of this Court directed the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated 15-12-1983 which means that the petitioner was allowed to continue in service under the interim order of this Court dated 22-12-1983. It, however, appears that at the time of the final disposal of the stay application the interim-order passed by this C writ on 22-12-1983 was vacated. Sri K.L. Grover, appearing for respondent No. 1, Punjab National Bank, has, however, given an undertaking that in the event of the writ petition being allowed all the salary and allowances due to the petitioner which would have been payable to him if he had continued in service till retirement, shall be paid to the petitioner. It is therefore, clear that the petitioner was made to retire subject to the aforesaid undertaking given by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Punjab National Bank. 3. The only question which arises for determination in this writ petition is as to whether the correct date of birth, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, is 20-12-1923 as contended by the respondent-Bank, or 1-7-1927 as alleged by the petitioner on the basis of the birth date as has been recorded in the High School Certificate of the petitioner. 4. In the writ petition it has been contended that even according to the circular which has been issued by the Bank, the date of birth which had to be recorded in the service book of the petitioner, was on the basis of the date of birth as given in the High School Certificate of the petitioner. 4. In the writ petition it has been contended that even according to the circular which has been issued by the Bank, the date of birth which had to be recorded in the service book of the petitioner, was on the basis of the date of birth as given in the High School Certificate of the petitioner. As the date of birth, given in the High School Certificates of the petitioner is 1-7-1987, the recording of 20-12-1923 as the date of birth is a grave en or, or apparent on the face of the record. 5. Sri K.L. Grover, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has however, contended that the petitioner was employed in the Bank at Rampur Branch as cashier in 1949 by the Treasurer of Punjab National Bank. It has been further contended that it is not disputed that at the time of entering the service as cashier, the petitioner did not possess the High School qualification in 1949 and it was later on that while in service of the Bank, the petitioner passed his High School examination in the year 1955 and the date of birth which may have been recorded in 1955 is not relevant for the purposes of recording the date of birth in the service record of the petitioner at the time of joining the service in respondents Bank in the year 1949. Strong reliance has been placed on Annexures C.A. 1, and C.A. 2, which are the documents which according to the respondents have been filed by the petitioner himself and in these documents the petitioner has given the date of birth as 20-12-1923. The respondents' counsel has also placed reliance on the circular issued by the Bank in connection with admission of date of birth of employees in Bank's record, which is contained in Annexure C.A. 5. On the basis of the instructions which have been given by the petitioner, the Bank was right in filling the service record of the petitioner at the time of his joining the service. A bare perusal of the two circulars issued by the Bank which have an important bearing on the controversy raised in this writ petition, it would be clear that in case at the time of the employment, the employee has passed matriculation examination, the date of birth as per the matriculation certificate shall be taken as conclusive proof of age. A bare perusal of the two circulars issued by the Bank which have an important bearing on the controversy raised in this writ petition, it would be clear that in case at the time of the employment, the employee has passed matriculation examination, the date of birth as per the matriculation certificate shall be taken as conclusive proof of age. However, in case the employee has not passed Matriculation Examination, his age should be admitted on the basis of a certificate from the Municipal record or police station of the place where such an employee is born, or School Leaving Certificate of a recognised school. In case both the conditions are not present, then an employee who is non matriculate and cannot produce any of the aforesaid proofs, the date of birth may be admitted on the basis of declaration of his age given by the employee at the time of his appointment. 6. It has not been disputed that at the time of entering the service of the Bank in the year 1949, the petitioner was a non-matriculate and thus, the Bank has rightly entered the age of the petitioner on the basis of the declaration made by him. The petitioner has passed his High School examination in 1955 while he was in service. In our opinion, the High School Certificate of the petitioner cannot be the basis of the conclusive proof of his age as it was not in existence at the time the petitioner entered the service. 7. In connection with the declaration in respect of giving his date of birth as 20-12-1923, the petitioner has stated that the aforesaid record is not genuine. A supplementary- affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Bank in which it has been stated that the respondent-Bank has got the documents contained in Annexure-1 and 2 examined by a hand-writing expert for the purpose that they are in hand-writing of the petitioner. According to the respondent-Bank the hand-writing expert has given his opinion and it has been stated by him that the documents are the hand-writing of the petitioner. 8. This Court, in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not go into the disputed question of fact as neither it is permitting the parties to lead oral and further documentary evidence. 8. This Court, in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not go into the disputed question of fact as neither it is permitting the parties to lead oral and further documentary evidence. On the strength of the materials which have been filed before us in this writ petition, we find that there is oath against oath and further the report of the hand-writing expert has been obtained by the respondent-Bank. We, are thus not in a position to record a positive finding that the documents contained in Annexures-1 and 2 are not genuine documents. 9. As we have noticed above, the learned counsel for the respondents has given an undertaking to this Court at the time of filing of this writ petition on 22-12-1983. In case this Court accepts the version of the petitioner with regard to his date of birth, even then the petitioner would have no right to remain in service, as he has crossed the age of superannuations. At present moment not only question of receiving salary and other emoluments which may have been admissible to the petitioner in case he was entitled to remain in service, remains. In our opinion for this purpose the proper remedy open to the petitioner is to file Civil Suit where disputed questions of fact can he determined. 10. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. 11. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner within three days on payment of usual charges.