JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to restrain the respondents from effecting retirement of the petitioner before 30th June, 1995. It has also been prayed that if for any reason retirement of the petitioner is effected then the respondents be directed to take back the petitioner in service and allow him to remain in service till 30.6.1995 and direct the respondents to give the petitioner all consequential benefits. 2. The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Secretary, Municipal Board, Balotra on 29.1.1957. Thereafter, he was transferred to Municipal Board, Merta, where the service book of the petitioner was prepared and in the service book his date of birth came to be entered as 12.6.37 on the basis of birth certificate given to him by the then City Magistrate, Jodhpur. The petitioner was informed vide order dated 6.1.1993 (Annex. 2) that on attaining the age of superannuation he will be retiring from service on 30.6.93. It is alleged that the petitioner made representation against the letter dated 6.1.93 and on 14.6.93 he has preferred this writpetition under Article 226. 3. This Court issued notice to show cause and in pursuance of which the respondents appeared and filed reply. The respondent No. 1 State in its reply has stated that the petitioner has already been retired from the service w.e.f. 30.6.93, the petitioner never raised any objection regarding his date of birth till 15.6.93 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. Reply to the writ petition has also been filed by the respondent no. 2 stating that the petitioner was rightly superannuated in accordance with the date of birth. It has been further stated that it is a disputed question of fact that cannot be decided in the writ petition and further the conduct of the petitioner itself disentitle him to obtain any relief from this Court and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. A rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner, on 30.9.93 raising the point of R. 8(2) of the R.S.R. 4. Mr. A rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner, on 30.9.93 raising the point of R. 8(2) of the R.S.R. 4. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the service book the date of the petitioner is mentioned as 12.6.35 which is duly verified and in view of R. 8(2) of the R.S.R., this date has to be taken as the date of birth of the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner attains the age of superannuation on 11.6.1995 only whereas the respondents have illegally retired him from service on 30.6.93 which deserves to be quashed. 5. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the non-petitioner no. 2 has raised preliminary objection that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner has already filed a suit for the purpose, which is still pending and that the question of correct date of birth is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in writ jurisdiction. He has also submitted that till retirement the petitioner kept mum and did not produce high school certificate deliberately. He has further submitted that the validity of R. 8(2)(a) has already been struck down. The alleged entry of date of birth in photostat copy of the service book is a forged one as there is clear sign of erasing/overwriting and that the person viz. Gordhan Das who has verified the date of birth has 12.6.37 is not competent to do so. He has submitted that even in the earlier writ petition no. 5894/92 filed by the petitioner at Jaipur Bench against his transfer from Barmer to Kota he came with a case that he is on the verge of retirement as his date of birth is 12.6.35 and obtained stay alleging that "he is to superannuate on 30.6.93 on attaining the age of 58 years and his date of birth is 12.635", therefore, he be now estopped to challenge the same. Mr. Mathur has further submitted that in Column no. Mr. Mathur has further submitted that in Column no. 5 of the Service Book, the petition has shown that he passed intermediate from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 1956 whereas at that time the Board was not even constituted, so these entries are false and in the absence of any explanation the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted, therefore, on the score of such conduct of the petitioner, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The petitioner has entered in service on 29.1.1957 as Commissioner and posted at Municipal Board, Balotra and as per the petitioner his service book was prepared at Municipal Board, Merta wherein at column no. 3 his date' of birth was mentioned as 12.6.37. Whereas in the Annual Performance Appraisal Annex. 2.1, R. 2 & R. 3 for the years 1975-76, 76-77 and 78-79, which are required to be filled in by the officer reported upon i.e. the petitioner himself the date of birth is mentioned as 12.6.35, so also, in the seniority list dated 3.11.81 published by the Directorate, Local Bodies Department, Rajasthan, the name of the petitioner appears at S. No. 21 and his date of birth is mentioned in column no. 3 as 12.6.35. Admittedly, the petitioner has not made any representation or raised objection till he received letter dated 6.1.93 informing him that on attaining the age of superannuation he will be retired on 30.6.93. Therefore, the arguments that the APRs' are not binding and the date of birth as 12.635 was mentioned inadvertently only is not acceptable to me at this stage particularly he has been retired on the basis of date of birth mentioned by the petitioner in APRs, seniority list, so also the date of birth mentioned by him in his pervious writ petition filed against his transfer, so now he cannot agitate that his date of birth is 12.6.37, has some substance. Though the petitioner has produced photostat copy of Service book showing his date of birth as 12.6.37 verified by one Gordhan Das without alleging that he was his Officer at the relevant time, but the same has been controverted by the respondents on the ground that from where he has obtained the copy of service book as it was not traceable with the Department and further there are signs of erasing/cutting and also that the person viz. Gordhan Das who has verified his date of birth was not competent to do so and the entry in column no. 5 is false because the Board did not exist at that time, therefore, he cannot take advantage of Rule 8(2) of R.S.R. that too when all other documents do not support the case of the petitioner. As such it is a disputed question of fact which cannot be allowed to be agitated in the writ jurisdiction more particularly when the petitioner has already filed a suit for the purpose. Apart from that the petitioner has not furnished any explanation why he has no produced the high school certificate on the basis of which the City Magistrate has certified his date of birth as 12.6.37. Under the circumstances of the case and looking to the conduct of the petitioner, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the writ petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- payable to each of the respondents. cannot be made in the character roll entries given by a Judge. That apart, so far as the present case is concerned, entries have been made by the Inspecting Judge or by the Chief Justice but only by the Reporting Officer. Furthermore, I am clearly of the opinion that if the entries in the character roll were found to be baseless, there will be ever justification to hold them to be arbitrary and quash the same. That has precisely been done in the cases of Mangal Chand Taylor and O.P. Jain to which reference has been made here in above.Writ Petition Dismissed With Costs of Rs.1,000/- *******