ORDER 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20th July, 1991 issued by the Superintendent of Police (C) Crime Investigation Department, Bihar communicating the decision of the competent authority that the representation filed by the petitioner in regard to correction of his date of birth has been rejected on the ground that the same had not been made within the period of 10 years as provided under Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules volume-I. He is also aggrieved by the consequential order dated 14th August, 1991, whereby the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 20th July, 1991, has been superannuated with effect from 31st August, 1991. 2. The facts giving rise to this application do not appear to be in dispute. Shortly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Sepoy on 8.8.1955. At the time of his appointment his date of birth was mentioned as 1933 (22 years) against the relevant column. The petitioner admittedly had done his matriculation in the year 1952. A photo copy of matriculation certificate is marked Annexure-1 to the writ application. In the counter affidavit, which has been filed at the stage of admission itself, the genuineness of the aforesaid certificate has not been challenged. Stand, however, been taken, apart from the ground stated in the impugned order – namely that the petitioner had not filed application for correction of date of birth within ten years, the petitioner had put his signature in his own hand and has also put his thumb impression in the relevant column of the service book, a copy of which has been brought on the record as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. It is accordingly submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner having already accepted his year of birth as 1933, he cannot subsequently be permitted to take the stand, on the basis of the matriculation certificate, that his date of birth is 25th February, 1934. 3. It is accordingly submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner having already accepted his year of birth as 1933, he cannot subsequently be permitted to take the stand, on the basis of the matriculation certificate, that his date of birth is 25th February, 1934. 3. In this connection, it would not be out of place to mention that the State of Government had issued a circular on 26th February, 1976 permitting the concerned police personnel to make application for correction of date of birth within one year from the date of issue of circular on the basis of their matriculation certificate in cases where the persons concerned had passed matriculation examination prior to their appointment. This court has consistently taken the view that neither the period mentioned in Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules nor the period of one year mentioned in the said circular dated 26th February, 1976 is mandatory and in appropriate cases, prayer for correction of the date of birth may be entertained even after the expiry of the aforesaid period. A Bench of this Court in the case of Murli Manohar Tiwary Vrs. The State of Bihar and others (1986 P.L.J.R. 1180) considered the aforesaid aspect and held that the benefit of the aforesaid circular of the State Government should be made available to those persons, who had passed the matriculation examination before their appointment, but the dates of birth entered in the Service Book were different from what has been mentioned in the matriculation certificate. In the case of Ram Sobbhit Rai Vrs. The state of Bihar and others (1989 B.B.C.J. 141), the learned single judge of this court after considering the various bench decision of this court, has mentioned in the judgment, rejected the contention put forth on behalf of the State that merely because the persons concerned has put his signature in the Service Book containing the entry about his date of birth, that should be treated as conclusive in all cases and it was observed that in such cases also an opportunity should be given for correction of age in accordance with the matriculation certificate. 4. 4. The rule in regard to the determination of age of the employees in public service on the basis of the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate is a rule of universal application with the exception that such a benefit will not be available in case, where the persons concerned had passed the matriculation examination later than their appointment. 5. Having considered the facts of the case and also the precedents of the Court, as briefly stated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the case of the petitioner deserves re-consideration. The competent authority namely, the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna is accordingly directed to re-consider the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months.