S. NAINAR SUNDARAM, C. J. ( 1 ) ). The respondent in Special Civil application No. 205 of 1993 is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal and the petitioner in the Special Civil application is the respondent herein. Convenience suggests that we should refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the Special Civil application. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge, in Special civil Application No. 205 of 1993, was asked to consider the petitioners plea to restore the date of birth as 5-2-1937, originally found in his service record, as the correct date of birth. That the date of birth in the service record was, initially, entered as 5-2-1937 is not in dispute. However, the date of birth has been corrected as 29-1-1935. The learned single Judge, finding an apparent alteration in the date of birth in the service record, held that it happened without following the principles of natural justice and that would border to unreasonableness and arbitrariness. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge countenanced the pleas of the petitioner that his date of birth was 5-2-1937 and directed the respondent to restore the date of birth of the petitioner as 5-2-1937, and further directed that the petitioner shall not be retired from the service on the basis that his date of birth was 29-1-1935. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single judge. ( 3 ) MR. S. N. Shelat, learned Counsel for the respondent would endeavour to demonstrate that the alteration of the date of birth took place even at the inception of the entry of the date of birth in the service record and for this purpose, he draws our attention to the exchange of correspondence. We do not think that by looking into the subsequent correspondence, what is patent on the service record could be forgotten. We have been furnished with a xerox copy of the service record of the petitioner and, there, we find that the alteration has been done. There is no initial of the petitioner obtained, to evidence that such alteration happened even at the time of the initial entry and there is no other record produced before Court to show that the alteration happened even at the time of the initial entry in the service record. There is no initial of the petitioner obtained, to evidence that such alteration happened even at the time of the initial entry and there is no other record produced before Court to show that the alteration happened even at the time of the initial entry in the service record. Hence, it is not possible to subscribe our support to the theory of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the alteration as such happened even at the time of initial entry in the service record and it was not a subsequent alteration. The learned Single Judge was right in proceeding on the basis that the alteration happened after the initial entry and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to make his say before the alteration took place. ( 4 ) MR. S. N. Shelat, learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the matter involves disputed questions of fact and the documents produced by the petitioner, if at all, could have only probative value and without adduction of further evidence, there could not be an adjudication on the question. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the said context, the civil remedy would be the appropriate one and this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to have adjudicated upon the question. It is true that when a dispute arises with reference to the date of birth, this Court will be asked to go into the field of disputed questions of fact and this Court, can, in appropriate cases, as a matter of discretion, refrain from going into that question and giving a verdict over it and it will be in order for this Court to relegate the parties to the ordinary civil remedy. But this is not a question of this Court lacking jurisdiction, but a question of discretion. Where the question in dispute is with reference to the legal propriety and regularity of what happened and there has been a patent violation of the principles of natural justice, which demonstrated unreasonableness and arbitrariness, this Court will be in order to interfere and give the appropriate relief. We find that this is the principle, which, on facts, has guided the learned Single judge, when he rendered the verdict in the Special Civil Application. We find that this is the principle, which, on facts, has guided the learned Single judge, when he rendered the verdict in the Special Civil Application. The learned single Judge has also otherwise positively found as per records that the petitioners correct date of birth was 5-2-1937. We have not found a warrant to interfere with the decision of the learned Single judge. Accordingly, this Letters Patent appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. Letters Patent appeal dismissed. .