Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. This writ application has been failed for quashing the order contained in letter dated 2.3.1996. Annexure 5. Whereby the petitioner was intimated by the respondents that he was to retire on 10.4.1996. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the year, 1961. At the time of appointment, he submitted his Admit Card in support of his date of birth. In the Admit Card, the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 11.11.1937. In 1987 the extract of details of entry in the service record was furnished to the petitioner. In the said document the date of birth was mentioned as 10.4.1936. The petitioner filed on objection before the respondents that his date of birth as mentioned in the service record is not correct. It should have been 11.11.37 instead of 10.4.1936 on filing of the objection, the date of birth as maintained in the Admit Card as well as in the school leaving certificate was verified from the Bihar school examination Board, The Board submitted a report. Annexure 4, stating that the date of birth as mentioned in the aforesaid document as 11.11.1937 was correct. 3. The grievance at the petitioner in such a situation is that although the petitioner was to retire on 11.11.1997. the petitioner was forced to retire on 10.4.1996. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case stating there in that the petitioners date or birth was mentioned as 10.4.1936 in the service record. The petitioner did not raise any objection with regard in the said entry and in the fag end of service he is raising dispute which cannot be accepted. The petitioner had appeared before a physician and his age was ascertained and hence the petitioners claim cannot be accepted at the fag and of his service. 5. On consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and also the materials available on this record, it is manifest that the petitioner entered in the service in the year, 1961. The claim of to petitioner is that Admit Card and the relevant documents were produced at the time of joining in support of the date of birth and he was under impression that his date of birth had correctly been maintained in the service record as 11.11.37. The claim of to petitioner is that Admit Card and the relevant documents were produced at the time of joining in support of the date of birth and he was under impression that his date of birth had correctly been maintained in the service record as 11.11.37. In the year, 1987, extract of details of entry in the service was furnished to the petitioner and he came to know that his date of birth was mentioned as 10.4.1936 and hence he filed objection petition with regard to the entry of date of birth in the service record. It appears that pursuant to the said objection the petitioner was asked to appear before the Medical Superintendent and these after the respondents did not change the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is that the determination of his age by the Medical Superintendent was not scientific as the ossification test etc. was not held. Nothing has been produced to show that ossification test etc. was done by the Superintendent. It is also evident that objection was not raised at the fag and of service, rather, objection was raised in the year 1987 i.e. about nine years ago from the alleged date of retirement. 6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of direction the respondents to constitute a Medical Board and get the petitioner examined for ascertaining his actual age.