Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.8.96. contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition, by which the Date of Birth of the petitioner has been shown as 2.1.1939 and he was given superannuation with effect from 31.1.1997 on attaining the age of 58 years. (2). The petitioner had joined the service of the respondents as a Teacher Gra- de III with effect from 8.8.1962 and in his Service Book, which was prepared at the time of his entry in the service, his the Date of Birth has been recorded as 2.1.1939 and on the basis of which the respondents gave him superannuation on completing the age of 58 years. The petitioner, on receiving the impugned order dated 17.8.96, first time filed a representation before the Competent Authority to correct his Date of Birth as 2.1.1941 instead of 2.1.1939 and to keep him in service for two more years and in support of his case, he filed certain documents showing that his Date of Birth was 2.1.1941. As the respondents did not grant any relief to the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition on 22.1.1997. This Court did not consider it proper to grant any interim relief. Respondents have filed reply. This case, though listed today for Admission, was heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. (3). Mr. Kailash Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed some unimpeachable piece of evidence in support of his case, i.e. Date of Birth and the respondents were under obligation to consider the same and correct his Date of Birth. However, Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the Service Book, prepared by the respondents at the time of joining the services by the petitioner in the year 1962, contains his Date of Birth as 2.1.1939. He has filed the photo-copy of the same alongwith the reply wherein he has pointed out that the same had been signed by the petitioner himself on different dates and,thus, he was aware of the fact that as per the record his Date of Birth was 2.1.1939 and he had never raised any objection and there can be no reason to come-forward for correcting the Date of Birth at such a belated stage. It is further submitted by Mr. It is further submitted by Mr. Bishnoi, that the Seniority Lists had been published from time to time which, also, contained the Date of Birth of the petitioner as 2.1.1939,however, the petitioner never raised any objection to it and as per the law, his application for correcting the Date of Birth cannot be entertained at such a belated stage and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Kailash Joshi has submitted that the petitioner has signed the Service Book without understanding the contents thereof and, therefore, he could not be held responsible for the same and cannot be deprived of the legitimate benefit of service for two more years after correcting the Date of Birth in his Service Book. (4). Petitioner was, undoubtedly, a teacher and joined the in service in 1962. He is not illiterate person. He is supposed to know the character of a document and the contents thereof before putting his signatures on them. Moreover, if he had not understood, he cannot take the benefit of his own wrong. (Vide T. Sriniwasan vs. T. Varalakshimi (1). and G.S. Lamba and others vs. Union of India & Ors. (2). (5). In Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and others vs. M/s. Green Rubber Industries & Ors. (3), the Honble Apex Court has considered the issue of signing a document without understanding the contents thereof and observed as under:- ``It is settled law that a person, who signs documents which contained contractual terms, is normally bound by them even though he has not read them even though he is ignorant of the precised legal effect thereof. (6). Thus, in view of the above, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the plea that he had put his signatures without understanding the contents of the Service Book. The same view has been taken by this Court in Ratan Lal Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (4). (7). It is settled law that the employee cannot ask the employer to change or to make any correction in his Date of Birth after Serving for a long period and if it does so, the employer is under no obligation to consider such an application. (7). It is settled law that the employee cannot ask the employer to change or to make any correction in his Date of Birth after Serving for a long period and if it does so, the employer is under no obligation to consider such an application. (Vide Secretary and Commissioner Home Department and others vs. R. Kirubakaran (5), Chief Medical Officer vs. Khadeer Khadri (6), Burn Standard Company Ltd. and others vs. Deen Bandhu Majumdar and another (7), Union of India vs. Miss Saroj Bala (8), Vishakhapatnam Dock Labour Board vs. E. Atchanna and others (9), Union of India vs. Harnam Singh (10), International Airport Authority vs. M.A. Wahab (11) and the Collector of Madras and another vs. Raja Manikam (12). (8). In view of the aforesaid judgments, the Court reaches an inescapable con- clusion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to plead that the mistake in the recorded Date of Birth was itself discovered at a very late stage, and it cannot be a ground for the writ court to interfere in the matter for the simple reason that the attempt is not a bonafide one as the petitioner had put his signatures in the Service Book several times and Mr. Joshi could not answer, when confronted as why the petitioner had not raised objection whenever the Seniority Lists showing his Date of Birth were published from time to time. The Writ court should be slow to interfere in the matter where the correction is sought in the Date of Birth at the fag end of the service for the reason that the Date of Birth had been recorded long time ago in the Service Book and the writ jurisdiction cannot be resorted to by the em- loyee as a matter of course. The very conduct of non- raising an objection in the matter by the petitioner itself is a sufficient ground not to interfere in the matter as such application was liable to be rejected only on the ground of `acquiescence, undue delay and laches. (9). In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition cannot be entertained at such a belated stage as it is barred by acquiescence, undue delay and laches on the part of the petitioner and hence dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.