D. N. Baruah,J.— This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.93 of the learned Single Judge passed in Civil Rule No. 1877 of 1992. 2. Facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows: Petitioner was appointed Development Officer in the year 1966 in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Guwahati, respondent No.1 herein. At the time of recording his age in the service record, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 1.10.1933 on the basis of the Matriculation certificate issued by the Gauhati University in the year 1955. As per the said Matriculation certificate his age was 21 years, 5 months on the 1st day of March, 1955. Petitioner made application in the year 1971 to the Gauhati University seeking change of date of birth from 1.10.33 to 1.1.38. The Gauhati University, accordingly, changed the date of birth of the petitioner and the age of the Matriculation certificate was corrected to that effect. After correction, the petitioner approached 1st respondent with a request to change the date of birth in the service record in pursuance of the correction made in the Matriculation certificate. This was however refused. 3. Petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition (Civil Rule No. 1806 of 1991) and this Court disposed of the said Civil Rule by judgment and order dated 24.6.92 with certain directions. As per direction, the petitioner was to produce before 1st respondent (4th respondent in the said Civil Rule) the original or certified copies of all documents on which the petitioner proposed to rely in support of his contention that the date of birth shown in the service record was incorrect and correct date of birth was the one as shown in the corrected Matriculation certificate. The 1st respondent was also directed to consider the evidence produced by the petitioner and pass order in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of production of documents. Till the disposal of the matter, the petitioner was allowed to continue to work as an employee of the 1st respondent. 4. The 1st respondent was also directed to consider the evidence produced by the petitioner and pass order in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of production of documents. Till the disposal of the matter, the petitioner was allowed to continue to work as an employee of the 1st respondent. 4. Accordingly, petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and produced certain documents, viz, Affidavit in original dated 6.7.92, photostate copy of birth certificate from HC Das, Barpeta dated 2.7.92, photostate copy of Matriculation certificate from Barpeta Government Higher Secondary School, Duplicate copy of extract from the daily register of births from Barpeta Municipality Board dated 4.7.92, certified copy of order of this Court dated 24.6.92, copies written by the petitioner to the University, i.e. Headmaster's statement and affidavit and Horoscope. The 2nd respondent after considering the entire matter observed that the petitioner failed to prove that his date of birth was 1.1.38 and not 1.10.33 as entered in the service record of the respondent. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent ordered that the petitioner's date of birth in the service record should remain as 1.10.33. Against that the petitioner preferred a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 1877 of 1992) before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 25.11.93 dismissed the petition upholding the order passed by the 2nd respondent/Against this judgment, the petitioner had preferred the present writ appeal. 5. We have heard both sides. Mr. SN Medhi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is without application of mind and also without consideration of the relevant papers and documents, therefore, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside. According to Mr. Medhi, the learned Single Judge did not consider these aspects of the matter. Mr. BR Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, supports the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the impugned order dated 13.8.92 passed by the 2nd respondent. 6. We have persued the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent and the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It appears that the 2nd respondent considered all the documents placed before him and scrutinised those thoroughly. According to the 2nd respondent the Horoscope produced before him was neither an original not a certified copy. 6. We have persued the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent and the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It appears that the 2nd respondent considered all the documents placed before him and scrutinised those thoroughly. According to the 2nd respondent the Horoscope produced before him was neither an original not a certified copy. It was further observed that there was nothing to indicate that the Horoscope produced was a copy of the original, therefore, he did not consider it as a reliable piece of evidence. He further observed that copy of Daily Register of Births of Barpeta Municipality produced before him had been issued on 4.7.92, and therefore, it could not be one of the documents considered by the University for correction of date of birth. Besides, it did not contain the name of the child and there was nothing in the document to indicate that the child referred to therein was the present petitioner. As per the order of this Court the petitioner had to produce the original or certified copies of all documents. Therefore, according to the 2nd respondent, the documents so filed did not carry any value in respect of the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner also did not make any attempt to show that child mentioned in the Daily Register of Births of Barpeta Municipality was the petitioner himself. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent found no merit in the contention of the petitioner. 7. It is well settled that a Government servant, may claim correction of his date of birth on the basis of irrefutable proof relating to the date of birth different from one earlier recorded. It must be done within the period prescribed by Rules, if any. Even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so within a reasonable period. Unreasonable delay may disentitle the Government servant to seek such relief. In the absence of any provision in the Rules for correction of date birth, general principle of refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied by the Courts and Tribunals. In the instant case, the date of birth in Matriculation certificate was changed by the University in the year 1971. In the absence of any provision in the Rules for correction of date birth, general principle of refusing relief on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied by the Courts and Tribunals. In the instant case, the date of birth in Matriculation certificate was changed by the University in the year 1971. On the basis of such correction the petitioner approached the respondents to change the date of birth entered in the service record earlier by the petitioner. The basis for change of date of birth was, however, not indicated by the University. An employer has every right to know under what circumstances the University made the change. If the .petitioner failed to produce neccessary documents to satisfy the employer, the employer has got every right to refuse the same. 8. It is argued by Mr. Medhi that in spite of the request, the University did not supply the documents filed by the petitioner. If that be so, the petitioner was not helpless and he could have approached this Court for a direction to the University for production of such documents. In this respect, the petitioner miserably failed to discharge his duties in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 1806 of 1991. The 2nd respondent thoroughly examined the documents produced before him. He, however, was not satisfied about the genuineness of the claim regarding correction of date of birth. The learned Single Judge affirmed the said decision on consideration of the entire matter. The view of the above, we do not find anything to come to a different conclusion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.