JUDGMENT Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.: This writ petition relates to a dispute regarding the date of birth. The petitioner joined West Bengal Police as constable on 4th April, 1957 and was promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in 1966 and then to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police in 1978. In his service book his date of birth was recorded as 21st November, 1934. The petitioner's contention is that the said date was recorded wrongly in the service book by some one of the police personnel and it was not in his hand-writing also he put his signature on the Verification Roll (V.R.). The contention of the petitioner is that his actual date of birth is 8th April, 1937. The petitioner submitted two representations dated the 19th March, 1991 and the 24th September, 1991 addressed to the Departmental Authorities for rectification of his date of birth in the service book and in support of his contention about his date of birth he enclosed school certificate with the representations. The departmental authorities however did not do anything on the said representations and instead, they took steps to superannuate the petitioner in November, 1992 taking his date of birth as 21st November, 1934 as recorded in the service book without taking into consideration his aforementioned representations and the school certificate. 2. Annexure-A to the writ petition is an extract of the entries relating to the petitioner in the Admission Register of the Krishnanagore Debnath High School. The entries in the said Register show that the Petitioner was admitted to class-VII in the said School on 19th January, 1949 and it also appears that at the time of admission he produced transfer certificate from his earlier school, namely Mat Boalia H. R. School (which now falls in Bangladesh). In the said Admission Register the petitioner's age on the day of admission i.e. on 19th January, 1949 was recorded as 11 years 9 months 11 days. Calculation on that basis shows that the petitioner's date of birth is 8th April, 1937. In the said Admission Register the petitioner's age on the day of admission i.e. on 19th January, 1949 was recorded as 11 years 9 months 11 days. Calculation on that basis shows that the petitioner's date of birth is 8th April, 1937. Annexure-A to the writ petition also includes a separate certificate issued by the Headmaster of the Krishnanagar Debnath High School on 13th January, 1992 wherein it is stated that the petitioner was a student of class-VIII of that school upto the month of January, 1950 and his age on 19th January, 1949 was 11 years 9 months 11 days as per the Admission Register. There is no reason why these school document and certificate should not be accepted as reliable materials relating to the age and education of the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that in the School certificate dated the 13th January, 1992 the Printed item No. (e) relating to the 'date of birth as per Admission register' has been penned through and instead, a new hand-written item being item No. (h) had been inserted at the bottom of the certificate containing a statement, written in hand, that the petitioner's age on 19th January, 1949 was 11 years 9 months 11 days as per Admission Register. I do not think that there is anything irregular or unnatural in it. As we have seen, the extract of the school admission Register does not contain any direct entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner. What is recorded in the Admission Register is the age of the petitioner on the particular date of admission, namely, on 19th January, 1949. Since there is no direct entry in the Admission Register relating to the date of birth of the petitioner it becomes quite understandable why the school certificate does not contain the date of birth of the petitioner and that is why the printed entry in the said certificate relating to date of birth has been penned through and a separate entry has been made in that certificate about the age of the petitioner on a particular date as per the Admission Register. There is, I reiterate, nothing irregular or unnatural in it. There is, I reiterate, nothing irregular or unnatural in it. Rather it shows the school certificate dated the 13th January, 1992 has been faithfully prepared on the basis of the school admission Register so far it relates to the age of the petitioner. One is now only to ascertain the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of the age recorded in the school record as the age of the petitioner on a particular date and calculation on that basis shows the petitioner's date of birth as the 8th April, 1937. 3. In the affidavit-in-reply it is also stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 got the genuineness of the said school documents verified through the Superintendent of Police, Nadia (District Enforcement Branch) but has deliberately suppressed the inquiry report. The fact however remains that it is not forthcoming as to on what basis the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in his service book as 21st November, 1934. As I have already mentioned, the petitioner's case is that he only signed the Verification Roll (at or about the time of entry in the service) and the wrong entry regarding his age was made by another person. Be that as it may, when the basis on which the entry relating to the age of the petitioner in the service book is not forthcoming and on the other hand when school documents are forthcoming indicating firmly the petitioner's date of birth and when there is a conflict between the service book and the school documents relating to the petitioner's date of birth, the respondents should have adverted their attention to the matter and should have considered the matter with an open mind, particularly when by two representations in 1991 the petitioner requested the authorities concerned to consider the matter on the basis of school document attached to the representations. Instead of adverting attention to those representations and the school document enclosed therewith and without making any whisper as to why the representation could not be considered and accepted, not to speak of giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the matter, the respondent No.1, the Superintendent of Police informed the petitioner under his memo No. 1490/RO dated the 9th April, 1992 that the date of the petitioner's retirement after attaining the age of 58 years would fall due on the 30th November, 1992. Such a summery action on the part of the respondent No. 1 without making any reference to the repeated representations earlier submitted by the petitioner in the matter, not to speak of assigning any reason as to why those representations could not be accepted although supported by school document, in plainly arbitrary. When the petitioner made representations regarding his date of birth it was incumbent upon the respondent concerned to deal with the matter in a manner consistent with the rules of natural justice (see, the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Binapani Devi, AIR 1967 SC 1969). In the Supreme Court decision in Binapani Devi (supra) it has been held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. In the present case when the petitioner submitted repeated representations before the Departmental Authorities regarding his date of birth supported by school document it was incumbent upon the Departmental authorities to consider the same properly by application of mind and by conforming to the rules of natural justice and then to take a decision in the matter recording the reasons for such decision and to communicate the same to the petitioner. Non-consideration of the representations on such a vital matter constitutes gross in action on the part of the departmental authorities thereby exposing the petitioner to civil consequence of rather Himalayan dimension inasmuch as by reason of such inaction the petitioner's service career may come to an undue end at a premature stage depriving him of the benefit of a considerable length of service by requiring him to retire earlier which might not have been so if the authorities concerned adverted their attention to the representations submitted by the petitioner to them. 4. The fact that the petitioner obtained N.V.P. training prior to his recruitment to the post of constable and that under rules one has to attain 18 years for receiving such training, as canvassed on behalf of the respondents, is of no consequence in view of the fact that the same would be only a self-serving declaration which is not backed by any supporting document or evidence. As regards the initial entry in the service book of the petitioner regarding are, I have already mentioned, there is nothing to show as to on what basis the entry was made. As regards the initial entry in the service book of the petitioner regarding are, I have already mentioned, there is nothing to show as to on what basis the entry was made. The petitioner's contention is that it was made by someone else wrongly. In this connection, I would refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Nihar Ranjan Bhowmick vs. State of West Bengal, 1991(1) CLJ 93, wherein it has been observed in connection with the recording of the date of birth in the service book that mere self-serving declaration of a recruit, in particular, in public employment, can never be the proof of age of the declarant. It has further been observed therein that ordinarily the oral statement can hardly be useful to determine the correct age of a person and the question therefore largely depends on the documents and the nature of their authenticity and that entries in the school register and admission form regarding the date of birth on the basis whereof the age is recorded in the Matriculation certificate constitute a good prod of age. In the present case indeed the petition is not a matriculate and therefore he does not have a Matriculation certificate, but the school record and the school certificate clearly show his age on a particular date from which the date of birth can be calculated with precision to the level of the exact day of a particular year. Therefore there is no reason why the Departmental authorities should not have considered the representations submitted by the petitioner regarding his date of birth on the basis of school record and why the school documents should not be taken as proof of the date of birth of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the respondents acted arbitrarily in not correcting the entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book on the basis of the documents of the school in which the petitioner read upto January, 1950. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The Memo No. 1490/RO dated the 8th April, 1992 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Howrah showing the date of retirement of the petitioner as 30th November, 1992 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The Memo No. 1490/RO dated the 8th April, 1992 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Howrah showing the date of retirement of the petitioner as 30th November, 1992 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed by a writ of Mandamus to correct the entry in the service book of the petitioner relating to his date of birth by recording his date of birth as the 8th April, 1937 in place of 21st November, 1934. The respondents are further directed to calculate the date of superannuation of the petitioner on the basis of his date of birth which is 8th April, 1937. If the petitioner has already been superannuated on the basis of the aforesaid Memo No. 1490/RO dated the 8th April, 1992 issued by the respondent No.1, the Superintendent of Police, Howrah he shall be forthwith reinstated in service and the respondents shall treat the petitioner to be in continuous service during the interim period till reinstatement and shall allow him all service benefits as such. Verbal prayer for stay is rejected. Writ Application allowed.