Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to the respondents to correct the Date of Birth in his Service Book as 20.5.1948 instead of 20.5.1940. (2). Head Mr. S.N. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Vyas, learned counsel for the respondents. (3). The factual matrix as presented by the petitioner reveals that he entered in the service of the respondent No.4 as a casual labour on muster-rolls basis with effect from 1.4.1965. On completion of two years satisfactory service upto 1.4.1967, he was given the semi-permanent status. Petitioner was subsequently posted as Carpenter with effect from 19.10.1970. He became the Senior Carpenter with effect from 4.12.1978. In 1994, the petitioner came to know, first time, that his Date of Birth which initially had been recorded in his Service Book as 20.5.1948 was later on altered as 20.5.1940 without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to him. Petitioner made several representation to the Competent Authority for correction of his Date of Birth but in vain. Hence this petition. In order to fortify his case, Peti- tioner has filed several affidavits of his family members and the horoscope to prove that he was born on 20.5.1948 before this Court. Reliance has also been placed upon rule 8 (2) (c) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which provides that the Date of Birth of a work-charge employee which was entered at the time of preparing the Service Record shall be accepted. (4). Respondents have filed the reply making very serious allegations against the petitioner, which include not only manipulation with the Service Record by him but also removal of his certificate of I.T.I. Respondents have filed a large number of documents showing that the petitioner had joined the service in 1956 and not in 1965 and when it came to the notice of the authorities that he had manipulated with record, he was confronted with it. He apologised and the Authority did not consider it proper to take any action against but made appropriate corrections in the Service Book. It is totally false that the correction was made without according an opportunity to the petitioner. (5). I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (6). He apologised and the Authority did not consider it proper to take any action against but made appropriate corrections in the Service Book. It is totally false that the correction was made without according an opportunity to the petitioner. (5). I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (6). The uncontroverted and undisputed salient features of this case are that (i) petitioner does not specify whether he is educated at all and if so, upto what standard; (ii) whether he had ever gone to any school, and if yes, what was his Date of Birth as recorded in the School Register; (iii) petitioner remained silent on the issue of certificate issued to him by the Industrial Training Institute; (iv) neither the affidavits produced by the petitioner from his family members nor the horoscope nor the voters-list showing his age, can be termed as unimpeachable piece of evidence, or the evidence which may be said to be admissible under the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. (Vide Mohd. Ikram Hussain vs. State of U.P. (1); and Umesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan (2 ); (v) the Voter-list and the Horoscope cannot be taken into account as the same had been prepared subsequent to the date of joining of service by the petitioner (vide R.S. Mehrotra vs. Central Govt. (Vide Mohd. Ikram Hussain vs. State of U.P. (1); and Umesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan (2 ); (v) the Voter-list and the Horoscope cannot be taken into account as the same had been prepared subsequent to the date of joining of service by the petitioner (vide R.S. Mehrotra vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal (3); Maharastra State Electricity Board vs. Sekharam Sitaram Shinde (4); and Nagar Mahapalika, Bareillie vs. Labour Court (5); (vi) the Date of Birth remains the same for the employee which is entered in the Service Book at the time of initial joining of the service; (vii) petitioners case is only to the extent that the respondent-Authorities have manipulated Date of Birth from 20.5.1948 to 20.5.40; (viii) it is not his allegation that any other part of the Service Record has been altered or manipulated though there are several other facts in the Service Book which narrate otherwise; (ix) Column 5-B specifically provided that petitioner had undergone the training of Carpenter in the year 1956-57 for one year at Model Carpenting Training Centre, Dungarpur, if this entry is taken to be true and his version is accepted, petitioner should have been only eight years of age at the time of joining the service; and (x) petitioner has no where challenged that this entry has wrongly been recorded or has subsequently been introduced. (7). Moreover, there is a letter dated 20.5.1967 (Annexure R.3), which was written by the petitioner himself to the competent authority saying that he had joined the service on 1.5.1957 and completed ten years service but had not been granted the status of semi-permanent employee, which ought to have been granted to him after completion of two years satisfactory service. This bears petitioners signature. An order was passed on his representation on 31.7.1967 by the Competent Authority to do the needful. There is a specific averment in this regard in the reply filed by the respondents. Petitioner has chosen not to file rejoinder-affidavit denying this fact and there is no reason to think that this letter was not written by the petitioner or is a forged and fabricated document nor the petitioner has denied the allegation of removal of the I.T.I. Certificate by him from the record. (8). Petitioner has chosen not to file rejoinder-affidavit denying this fact and there is no reason to think that this letter was not written by the petitioner or is a forged and fabricated document nor the petitioner has denied the allegation of removal of the I.T.I. Certificate by him from the record. (8). In view of the above, it seems that Petitioners Date of Birth is 20.5.1940 and it was correctly recorded in his Service Book; averments made by petitioner in the petition are false; the affidavits of his relatives filed by the petitioner in support of his case are also false; and petitioner has manipulated his service record. (9). But even if this suspicion is partly true, this becomes a serious matter. Petitioner not only played mischief of manipulating the original service record but played fraud on this Court and his family members readily submitted their affidavits to support his totally false case. Considering the gravity of the circumstances, the matter requires thorough investigation. (10). Thus, the petition is dismissed and the matter is sent to the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur to get the matter expeditiously investigated by the officer of his choice and thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law against the petitioner as well as other persons who seems to have colluded with him in giving the false affidavits. The respondents are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency and make it available all the relevant records. (11). A photo-stat copy of the petition as well as the reply filed by the respon- dents,alongwith the certified copy of this order, be sent by the Registry of this Court to the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur within a period of one week from today for compliance of the order.