JUDGMENT : D.K. Seth, J. The Petitioner has prayed in this writ petition for a direction upon the Respondents not to retire the Petitioner on 30th of November, 1993 and for quashing of the impugned order dated 15th November 1993, being Annexure 4' to the writ petition, by which the Petitioner was retired on 30th November, 1993. 2. The Petitioner's case was that he was appointed in the post of Clerk on 30th May, 1956 in the Collectorate at Banda. The date of birth of the Petitioner was 1st of December, 1938, as recorded in the High School Certificate issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh for the year 1953. Accordingly, he was due to retire on attainment of 58 years of age in the year 1996 but he was asked to retire by letter dated 15th November, 1993 with effect from 30th November, 1993 being Annexure 4' to the writ petition. It is against this order the Petitioner has moved this writ petition. 3. In the counter-affidavit, it has been contended that the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book as on 1st December, 1938 was corrected as on 1st December, 1935 by D.O. No.4741/2-31/61, dated 7th June, 1962 and that the said correction was duly acknowledged by the Petitioner who had endorsed his signature. Accordingly he was liable to retire on 30th November, 1993. The relevant copy of the correction made in the Service Book is Annexure 'CA-1'. Even in the seniority lists being Annexure 'CA-4' and 'CA-5', the date of birth of the Petitioner was shown as on 1st December, 1935 but he had not challenged the same. in the Provident Fund Record, his date of Birth was entered as 1st December, 1935. It is further contended that the Petitioner was not appointed on 30th May, 1956 but he was appointed on 15th May, 1953 which is apparent from the Service Book which is annexed as Annexure 6' to the writ petition. It is further contended that if his date of birth is treated to be 1st December, 1938, he would have been 15 years of age at the time of his initial appointment. It is further contended that if his date of birth is treated to be 1st December, 1938, he would have been 15 years of age at the time of his initial appointment. He was aware of the correction in the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book as he was posted as General Clerk and Bill Clerk and was supposed to maintain the Service Book of the entire establishment of the Collectorate. But he did not raise the said question until on the eve of his retirement. 4. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the Petitioner has denied the statements made in the counter-affidavit and stated that he was never informed about the correction and that he was not given any opportunity. He was not served with the order dated 7th June, 1962. The signature appearing in the Service Book is not an acknowledgment of his date of birth being recorded as 1st December, 1935. The date of birth shown in the seniority list is incorrect. He admitted to have worked temporarily from time to time, namely, from 15th May, 1953 till 31st July, 1953, then again from 26th December, 1953 to 31st March, 1954 and again from 26th April, 1954 till 24th August, 1954, from 1st June, 1955 till 31st August. 1955 from 21st January, 1956 till 25th March, 1956. He was given regular appointment from 30th May 1956. 5. By order dated 23rd November, 1993, the operation of the order dated 15th November, 1993 was stayed until further orders. The stay order does not appear to have been vacated. Therefore, the Petitioner is continuing in service. 6. The Petitioner's contention is two fold viz. : (i) by reason of Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as 1974 Rules), the date of birth as recorded in the School Certificate should be the date of birth and the same cannot be altered; (ii) the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book cannot be altered without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and that no such opportunity was ever given. 7. The Petitioner relied on a judgment in the case of Mahendra Nath Chaubey v. The Superintending Engineer, 56th Circle, PWD and Ors. 1990 (3) UPLBEC 1784. 7. The Petitioner relied on a judgment in the case of Mahendra Nath Chaubey v. The Superintending Engineer, 56th Circle, PWD and Ors. 1990 (3) UPLBEC 1784. In support of the contention that in order to change the date of birth, a notice and opportunity of being heard is a must in the said case, the Petitioner therein had not passed High School and his date of birth was recorded on the basis of Medical Certificate granted by the Chief Medical Officer. On the complaint of one Deo Ratan Yadav that the Petitioner therein was born in 1921 and not in 1933 as recorded in the Service Book, a report was sought. The Assistant Engineer submitted a report which was sent by the Superintending Engineer to the Engineer-in-Chief who effected the change in the Service Book of the Petitioner without giving him any opportunity, in that case, it was contended that the Petitioner was aware of the development but he did not take any steps but the said fact was denied by the Petitioner. Therefore, the change effected without any opportunity to the Petitioner was set aside. 8. In the present case, the date of birth was admittedly recorded in the Service Book as on 1st December, 1938 which appears to have been corrected pursuant to an order dated 7th June, 1962. It was endorsed in the Service Book on 18th June, 1962. It appears that the said Service Book was endorsed on 7th November, 1962 by the Petitioner with the endorsement 'seen'. This endorsement defeats the contention of the Petitioner regarding denial of opportunity and that he was not aware of the correction. Therefore, the ratio decided in the case of Mahendra Nath Chaubey (supra) cannot be applied and is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Petitioner referred to the judgment Devendra Gangwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (1990) 1 UPLBEC 320 and contended on the basis of the said judgment that the date of birth as recorded in the High School Certificate is to be accepted. 9. The Petitioner referred to the judgment Devendra Gangwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (1990) 1 UPLBEC 320 and contended on the basis of the said judgment that the date of birth as recorded in the High School Certificate is to be accepted. In the said case, the facts were different from the case of the Petitioner in as much as in the said case, the father of the Petitioner, a police employee, was working as Sub-Inspector at the time of his death although he was ordered to retire with effect from 30th June, 1987 which was stayed by the High Court by order dated 24th June, 1987. It was extended until further orders by order dated 11th December. 1987. On these facts, it was held that the Petitioner's father could not be treated to have retired prior to his death since on the date of death, the said interim order was operative and, therefore, the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Government order No. 8/12/1973 Appt. 4, dated 7th October, 1974. 10. Now the question arise : First, whether the correction of the age recorded in the service record contrary to the age on the basis of High School Certificate can be sustained in view of Rule 2 of the said 1974 Rules; secondly, whether the Petitioner can maintain this writ petition in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Now turning to the second question, first a perusal of the facts of this case further reveals that the date of birth was recorded as 1st December, 1935 in the G.P.F. which appears to have been endorsed in 1964. It also cannot be presumed that the Petitioner was not aware about the same. Even from the seniority list issued on 31st January, 1986, It appears that the Petitioner's date of birth was 1st December, 1935, in another seniority list issued on 17th October, 1990 in Serial No. 13, the date of birth was recorded as list December, 1935 against the Petitioner's name. It cannot be said that the Petitioner was not aware of the said recording. 12. Thus, it appears that the Petitioner was aware of his date of birth as recorded in his Service Book. Admittedly, he has not taken any steps for correcting the said date of birth nor he had challenged the same. It cannot be said that the Petitioner was not aware of the said recording. 12. Thus, it appears that the Petitioner was aware of his date of birth as recorded in his Service Book. Admittedly, he has not taken any steps for correcting the said date of birth nor he had challenged the same. He has also not disclosed in his writ petition as to on which date he became aware of the said recording of the date of birth. He had challenged the same only when he was due to retire. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar and Another, AIR 1995 SC 1499 has held: 10. Entertainment by High Courts of writ applications made by employees of the Government or its instrumentalities at the fag end of their services and when they are due for retirement from their services, in our view, is unwarranted. It would be so for the reason that no employee can claim a right to correction of birth date and entertainment of such writ applications for correction of dates of birth of some employees of Government or its instrumentalities will mar the chances of promotion of his Juniors and prove to be an undue encouragement to the other employees to make similar applications at the fag end of their service careers with the sole object of preventing their retirements when due. Extraordinary nature of the Jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, in our considered view, is not meant to make employees of Government or its instrumentalities to continue in service beyond the period of their entitlement according to dates of birth accepted by their employers, placing reliance on the so-called newly found material. Extraordinary nature of the Jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, in our considered view, is not meant to make employees of Government or its instrumentalities to continue in service beyond the period of their entitlement according to dates of birth accepted by their employers, placing reliance on the so-called newly found material. The fact that an employee of Government or its instrumentality who will be in service for over decades, with no objection whatsoever raised as to his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct, when all of a sudden comes forward towards the fag end of his service career with a writ application before the High Court seeking correction of his date of birth in he Service Record, the very conduct of non-raising of any objection in the matter by the employee, in our view, should be a sufficient reason for the High Court, not to entertain such applications on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay and laches. Moreover, discretionary Jurisdiction of the High Court can never be said to have been reasonably and Judicially exercised if it entertains such writ application, for no employee, who had grievance as to his date of birth in his 'Service and Leave Record' could have genuinely waited till the fag end of his service career to get it corrected by availing of the extraordinary Jurisdiction of a High Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation, in holding, that ordinarily High Courts should not, in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction entertain a writ application/petition filed by an employee of the Government or its instrumentality, towards the fag end of his service, seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his 'Service and Leave Record' or Service Register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement. ...When a person seeks employment, he impliedly agrees with the terms and conditions on which employment is offered. For every post in the service of the Government or any other instrumentality there is the minimum age of entry prescribed depending on the functional requirements for the post. in order to verify that the person concerned is not below that prescribed age he is required to disclose his date of birth. The date of birth is verified and if found to be correct is entered in the service record. in order to verify that the person concerned is not below that prescribed age he is required to disclose his date of birth. The date of birth is verified and if found to be correct is entered in the service record. It is ordinarily presumed that the birth date disclosed by the incumbent is accurate." ...'It is common knowledge that every establishment has its own set of service conditions governed by rules. It is equally known that practically every establishment prescribes a minimum age for entry into service at different levels in the establishment. The first thing to consider is whether on the date of entry into service would the employee have been eligible for entry into service on the revised date of birth. Secondly, would revision of his date of birth after a long lapse of time upset the promotional chances of others in the establishment who may have Joined on the basis that the incumbent would retire on a given date opening up promotional avenues for others. If that be so and if permitting a change in the date of birth is likely to cause frustration down the line resulting in causing an adverse effect on efficiency in functioning, the employer may refuse to permit correction in the date at a belated stage. It must be remembered that such sudden and belated change may upset the legitimate expectation of others who may have joined service hoping that on the retirement of the senior on the due date there would be an upward movement in the hierarchy. 14. ...we have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the Division Bench was wholly unjustified in interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge of the same court whereby it was held, in our view, rightly that the Appellant's writ application filed for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his service career for avoiding his superannuation which was due, cannot be entertained. 14. The Petitioner could have taken advantage of the said 1974 Rules and applied for correction of his date of birth in 1974 or even thereafter. It appears he did not take any steps. 15. 14. The Petitioner could have taken advantage of the said 1974 Rules and applied for correction of his date of birth in 1974 or even thereafter. It appears he did not take any steps. 15. From Annexure 6' which is copy of the Service Books, it appears that the Petitioner had entered into service on 15th May, 1953 which was terminated on 31st July, 1953 and similarly he worked from 26th December, 1953 till 31st March. 1954. from 26th April, 1954 till 24th August, 1954, from 1st June, 1955 till 31st August, 1955, from 21st June, 1956 till 25th March, 1956 and then he was appointed regularly on 30th May, 1956. Therefore, it is apparent that he started working since 15th May, 1953 when his age would be about 14 years 6 months calculated from 1st December, 1938. 16. The minimum age for entry into service is 18 years. Perhaps that was the reason why the date of birth was corrected despite such date being recorded in his High School certificate. The Petitioner by making endorsement appears to have accepted the same. Such endorsement implies that correction was made with his consent. 17. Perhaps that might be the reason for which the Petitioner had endorsed the date of birth as on 1st December, 1935 signifying that he had accepted the same due to which he had never objected the same or questioned the same. 18. Now turning to the first point, a reference may be made to Rule 15 of the 1974 Rules which runs as follows: 15. Determination of Correct Date of Birth or Age.--The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government service or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid or has passed such examination after Joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation of his service, including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date of age in any circumstances whatsoever. 19. 19. Now the above Rule 15 of the 1974 Rules, in my view, cannot be attracted in a case where the date of birth recorded in High School Certificate, if accepted, would offend the prescribed minimum age for entry into service and the age other than recorded in High School Certificate recorded in the Service Book is allowed to continue for long within the knowledge of the person concerned in interpreting Rule 15. it cannot be stretched to the extent of overriding or offending statutes made by the Parliament or other competent Legislature. Inasmuch as entry into service is a contract between the employer and employee, competence to contract dawn on the attainment of majority as envisaged u/s 11 of the Contract Act. Majority attains on attainment of the age of 18 years according to Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875. 20. In the present case, acceptance of the age recorded in the High School Certificate would result in the entry of the Petitioner into service at the age of 14 years 6 months, which cannot be allowed in view of the observation in the case of Bum Standard Co. Ltd. (supra) as quoted above. 21. In view of the above, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (supra), in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to question the age recorded in his Service Book. in that view of the matter, the writ petition fails and, as such, is dismissed with costs. The interim order dated 23rd November, 1993 stands vacated. The Petitioner shall be treated to have retired according to his date of birth as on 1st December, 1935 and shall be entitled to his retirement benefits on that basis. The excess emoluments received by reason of his continuance pursuant to interim order granted by the court shall not be recovered or adjusted since he had actually worked during the said period.