Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30-5-1985 issued by respondent. No. 4 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application as also order dated 7-5-1990 passed by respondent No. 3 as contained in Annexure-II to the writ application. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3.The petitioners date of birth was recorded in his Service Book as 22-6-1927 which was later on changed to 19-8-1932. The petitioner contended that the said purported correction was made by the concerned authorities after taking into consideration the documents produced by the petitioner including the certificate granted by the School where he studied. The respondents in their counter affidavit, however, contended that the petitioners date of birth was 22-6-1927. An endorsement was made later on in the Service Book of the petitioner by the Conservator of Forest to the effect that his earlier date of birth recorded therein, namely, 22-6-1927 should be considered for all purposes. The petitioner filed a representation which was rejected. 3. The petitioner, thereafter, moved this Court in C.W.J.C. 673/85R and by a judgment dated 13th July, 1989 this Court held as follows: In view of the fact that serious allegations have been made against the petitioner that he was himself responsible for alterations in the entries made in the Service Book, it is all the more necessary that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing. "In this circumstances, this petition is allowed and the concerned respondent is directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking final decision in the matter. The petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is hereby directed to produce all his documents and other evidences before the Conservator of Forest who shall dispose of the matter with utmost expedition and preferably within one month from the date of filing of the documents by the petitioner. It is made clear that in view of the statements made in the counter affidavit, the petitioner may also state before the respondent No. 4 that he was not responsible for alteration of the date of birth in his Service Book, wherefor no separate notice is required to be served upon the petitioner. 4. Pursuant to the directions aforementioned, an enquiry was held by the Conservator of Forest. 4. Pursuant to the directions aforementioned, an enquiry was held by the Conservator of Forest. In terms of memo bearing No. 456, dated 14-2-1990 addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forest (sic-he) stated that the petitioner had been able to satisfy the said authority that his date of birth is 19-8-1932 and by reason of the said Order, the Conservator of Forest requested the Chief Conservator of Forest that necessary correction be made in the Service Book of the petitioner. 5. However, by reason of an order dated 26-4-1990 as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application, respondent No. 3 without giving any further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and inter alia, relying upon Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules held that as the petitioner did not make any complaint with regard to the entry of his date of birth in the Service Book within a period of 10 years from the date of entry into the service the said objection cannot be considered. 6. The petitioner has contended that in view of the fact that this Court in its earlier order directed the respondent No. 4 to make an enquiry ; the respondent No. 3 merely to make the necessary correction in the Service Book in terms of the aforementioned report as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application and, thus, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application must be held to be without jurisdiction. It has further been brought to the notice of the court that before the report was submitted by respondent No. 4, he deputed Divisional Forest Officer to visit the officer of the Patna University for the purpose of verifying the original records so that the genuineness of the document filed by the petitioner may be ascertained, whereupon the Divisional Forest Officer reported that the date of birth of the petitioner is 19-8-1932. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case wherein it was inter alia, contended that respondent No. 3 had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It was further contended that Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules will apply in this case. A leave chart has further been brought to the notice of this Court chart which is contained in Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit, to show that therein also the petitioners date of birth is recorded as 22-6-1927. It was further contended that Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules will apply in this case. A leave chart has further been brought to the notice of this Court chart which is contained in Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit, to show that therein also the petitioners date of birth is recorded as 22-6-1927. The petitioner has himself admitted that he knew about entry relating to his date of birth when he was posted at Ranchi prior to 1-5-1982. Thereafter, he gave an application for correction of his date of birth which, however, is not available on records. It was further submitted that only in the quarterly returns, the petitioners date of birth was mentioned as 19-8-1932 which was submitted in 1984. 8. From a perusal of Annexure-11 to the writ application, it appears that respondent No. 3 has further taken into consideration that the purported correction was made by some other person and not by the petitioner. 9. Mr. P. K. Bhowmik learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner was altered in the Service Book he was entitled to an opportunity of being heard. According to the learned Counsel, the Chief Conservator of Forest who was merely requested by respondent No. 4 to alter the date of birth of the petitioner in his Service Book should not have held that petitioners date of birth is 22-6-1927 and not 19-8-1932 as this Court in its order passed in C.W.J.C. 673/85 R did not ask the respondent No. 3 to make an enquiry. It was submitted that even assuming that while exercising his power to make alterations in the Service Book of the petitioner relating to his date of birth he considered that the report of respondent No. 4 was not correct, he should have remitted the matter back to the said authority with such direction or directions as he might think fit and proper. 10. In the instant case, Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules evidently has no application inasmuch as the endorsement in the Service Book of the petitioner to the effect that his date of birth would be considered to be 22-6-1927 and not 19-8-1932 was made in the year 1984. 11. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said order as also the order of superannuation which is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. 11. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said order as also the order of superannuation which is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. 12. Mr. K. P. Mitra learned J. C. to G. P. I. submitted that from Annexure-2 to the writ application, it would appear that the petitioner was admitted, and again admitted for the third time which goes to show that the date of birth recorded in the Register of the said School cannot be correct. However, from the Admit Card issued to the petitioner by the Patna University which was to be held on 5-2-1951 it appears that his date of birth as recorded in the Register of the School was 19-8-1932. 13. In Ram Shobhit Rai V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1989 BBCJ 141 , a learned Single Judge of this Court upon taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules as also various decisions of this Court on the said subject, observed: It will be an artificial distinction drawn on the basis of a person passing the matriculation examination before entering the service and one who had not passed the matriculation examination if the rule as stated in the judgment of this Court in Murli Manohar Tiwarys case (supra) is not read to mean that such genuine cases, where mistakes occurred in the service book would not be corrected unless the officer concerned was able to show that he had passed the matriculation examination before entering the service. The instant case is one which may fall in that exception. The petitioner had appeared at the matriculation examination of the Patna University in February, 1950. In the admit card issued to him on 1-2-1950 his date of birth was mentioned as 1-4-1932. He entered the service by the recruitment made in the year 1951 in the service book his date of birth was shown as 1927. Subsequently he appeared in the Secondary Schools Examination conducted by the Bihar Secondary School Examination Board in the year 1960 and in the certificate issued by the Board his date of birth was shown as 1-4-1932. He entered the service by the recruitment made in the year 1951 in the service book his date of birth was shown as 1927. Subsequently he appeared in the Secondary Schools Examination conducted by the Bihar Secondary School Examination Board in the year 1960 and in the certificate issued by the Board his date of birth was shown as 1-4-1932. If there was a chance of a mistake in respect of the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book, and he could apply for correction thereof only apply for correction thereof only because he had passed matriculation examination in the year 1960, it cannot be said that he disclosed the date of birth of his choice to benefit himself, because he had already stated his date of birth, if at all he had himself stated on 1-2-1950 or before that when he had applied and appeared at the matriculation examinations conducted by the Patna University. 14. The said decision applies in all fours to the present case. 15. Respondent No. 3 in passing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application failed to consider this aspect of the matter. The submission of Mr. Bhowmik to the effect that from Annexures-12 and 13 to the writ application it would appear that respondent No. 4 prior to making the report as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application deputed a competent person to the Patna University for the purpose of making a verification as to whether the Admit Card submitted by the petitioner before the said authority was genuine or not and on verification from the records of the Patna University it was found that the Admit Card as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application is a genuine document, is well merited. This aspect of the matter has not been considered at all by respondent No. 3 in passing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application. 16. The respondent No. 3 further in his impugned order as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application mainly proceeded on the basis that although in the Service Book of the petitioner his date of birth was recorded as 22-6-1927 he did not lodge any protest in relation thereto although the same was seen by him in the year 1960. 17. The respondent No. 3 further in his impugned order as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application mainly proceeded on the basis that although in the Service Book of the petitioner his date of birth was recorded as 22-6-1927 he did not lodge any protest in relation thereto although the same was seen by him in the year 1960. 17. The petitioner has contended in the writ application that he had no knowledge about the entry made in the Service Book. This, however, has been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Whatever be the fact, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was obligatory on the part of respondent No. 3 to come to a conclusion as to when and by whom the date of birth of the petitioner from 22-6-1927 was changed to 19-8-1932 or vice versa. 18. Despite the fact that allegation was made by the respondents in the earlier writ application to the effect that the petitioner was responsible for causing interpolation in his Service Book in the matter of the entry of his date of birth, no finding to that effect has been arrived at by respondent No. 4 or by respondent No. 3. 19. Such a decision in the facts of this case was a vital one. 20. Mr. Mitra, J. C. to G. P. I. has relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in S. Sirumani C. Kannian Naidu V/s. Pandian Roadways Corporation, Madurai 1985 Vol. I SLR 63. In that case, no certificate was produced by the petitioner relating to his date of birth. In that case, it was held that in absence of any document, the entry made in the Service Book that the petitioner was born in 1926 could not be relied upon without there being any date or month and therefore the via media adopted by the respondent-authority in fixing the age of the petitioner thereof as 30th June, 1984 could not be said to be mala fide or arbitrary. The said decision, therefore, has no application to the facts of this case. In Laxman Swain V/s. Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in 1985 Vol. 2 SLR 225, the Orissa High Court has held that in case where there is a disputed question of date of birth, a civil suit is the appropriate remedy. The said decision, therefore, has no application to the facts of this case. In Laxman Swain V/s. Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in 1985 Vol. 2 SLR 225, the Orissa High Court has held that in case where there is a disputed question of date of birth, a civil suit is the appropriate remedy. This may be so in a given case, but, in the case, the question which arose for consideration was as to whether the respondents had any jurisdiction to alter the date of birth of the petitioner without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. 20. In this case, as noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner had already filed a writ application and succeeded therein. In this view of the matter, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application cannot be sustained. 21. In the result, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application is quashed and respondent No. 3 is directed to pass a fresh speaking order keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore (sic) petitioners as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner was required to be altered or not. As the matter is pending for a long time, respondent No. 3 shall dispose of the matter with utmost expedition and preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall also be entitled to costs from the respondents. The Advocates fee is assessed at Rs. 500 only.