KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) WRIT petition is taken up with consent of parties. The petitioner has tiled this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 24-10-1938 to 28-7-1945. ( 2 ) THE petitioner had applied with the respondent for the post of 'radio wirer trainee' by application for employment dated 27-1-1964. In her application, she gave her date of birth as 24-10-1938 and produced a copy of the secondary school leaving certificate issued by the head master, government high school, ezhudesapattu which shows that the petitioner's date of birth was 24-10-1938. True copies of application and secondary school leaving certificates are produced before me as annexures-r1 and r2 respectively. The petitioner was then offered for the post of 'radio wirer trainee' by order dated 28-12-1964. The petitioner has furnished the attestation form on 6-1-1965 indicating her date of birth as 24-10-1938. Petitioner reported for duty on 9-1-1965. On the basis of the application, secondary school leaving certificate and the attestation form, the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 24-10-1938 in her service records. The petitioner has also mentioned her age as 45 years on 18-4-1984 in her application for encashment which indicates the year of her birth as 1938, which also supports the date of birth recorded and she has also mentioned her date of birth as 24-10-1938 in the application for l. t. c. encashment dated 24-5-1995. There are other records which show that she had stated her date of birth as 24-10-1938. However, on 31-7-1995 after a lapse of 30 years the petitioner made a representation to the respondents requesting the respondents to change her date of birth from 24-10-1938 to 28-7-1945 in her service records on the basis of the certificate of baptism dated 11-9-1994. The management rejected the claim by letter dated 19-9-1995. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner, throughout her career, has not in any way requested the respondents to change her date of birth on the basis of baptism certificate and almost after 30 years, that is on 11-9-1994 she has produced the baptism certificate requesting the respondent to change her date of birth from 24-10-1938 to 28-7-1945. This is a classic case where no interference is called for while exercising powers under article 226 of the Constitution of india. This is a classic case where no interference is called for while exercising powers under article 226 of the Constitution of india. This court and the Supreme Court have repeatedly held that it is not open for the employee from time to time to change his or her date of birth at the fag end of his or her career and any such application should be rejected as this would demoralise the efficiency and prevent the chances of promotion of juniors seeking promotion in the establishment and will encourage other employees to make similar applications at the fag end of their service career with the sole object of preventing their retirements. This very point has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. And others v Dinabandhu Majumdar and another, as follows:"entertainment by high courts of writ application 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, 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 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 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 employers 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 his service record, the very conduct of non-raising of an objection in the matter by the employee, 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". there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .