JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment of learned single Judge in O.P. 7202 of 1989. The factual backdrop leading to the filing of the Original Petition and the Writ Appeal are essentially as follows. 2. Appellant, an employee of the Government of Kerala, claims that he was born on 12-4-1950 and not on 15-1-1948 as recorded in his service book. His prayer in the Original Petition was for a direction to the Government of Kerala to correct his date of birth in the service records. The foundation of appellant's claim for change of date of birth is the finding of the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram made on the basis of his application. The Commissioner relied on the certificate of birth issued by the Executive Officer and the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Karima Panchayat. The said certificate was issued on 20-4-1950, hardly eight days after the supposed date of birth. The Government of Kerala suspected the validity of the said certificate and rejected the claim. Learned single Judge observed that it was unlikely that name of the child would be found in the certificate of birth issued eight days after the birth. It was further observed that it was possible on the part of the petitioner to adduce other evidence like that of the mother's evidence and the date of birth of other brothers and sisters. That was not done. Since the Government suspected the authenticity of the certificate of birth, petitioner's claim was not entertained with a finding that it was a question of fact decided by the Government on available evidence. Even if another view was possible, it was not permissible to interfere with the conclusions in the writ jurisdiction. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on presumptions and suppositions the authenticity of a document has been doubted. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant entered into service on 1-1-1976. The entry in the service book was done on the basis of the documents produced by him. It appears from the records that the appellant filed an application before the Government on 22-5-1978 to correct his date of birth and as per G.O. (MS) 479/79/RD dated 1-3-1979 same was rejected. Subsequently, he filed another application on 29-4-1981. The entry in the service book was done on the basis of the documents produced by him. It appears from the records that the appellant filed an application before the Government on 22-5-1978 to correct his date of birth and as per G.O. (MS) 479/79/RD dated 1-3-1979 same was rejected. Subsequently, he filed another application on 29-4-1981. The reasons which weighed with the authority and which found favour by the learned single Judge relate to lack of authenticity of the birth certificate and certain suspicious circumstances surrounding the said certificate. It was noticed that if the date of birth as claimed by the appellant is accepted, it would mean that he was admitted into the educational institution even before he had reached the fourth year which is another suspicious factor. 4. What is the exact date of birth of a person is a question of fact. In the matter of determination of the date of birth, the authority has to take note of several factors. 5. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Director of Technical Education and another v. Smt. K. Sitadevi ( AIR 1991 SC 308 ), the question relating to what is the exact date of birth, is a question of fact and the writ court should not interfere with the finding recorded by authorities, unless the same is perverse, or unreasonable and is not supported by any material. Date of birth of a person is intermingled with his status which is directly connected with the civil right of that person such as the right to office, right to exercise franchise, right to continue in service upto a particular age. Normally, a civil right is to be enforced in a suit since what is the date of birth of a person being an inference from proved facts is a question of fact. When an enquiry into complicated questions of fact would arise, the High Court in its discretion in appropriate cases would decline to enter upon enquiry into the same in a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution and leave the party seeking the relief to approach an appropriate Court. When an enquiry into complicated questions of fact would arise, the High Court in its discretion in appropriate cases would decline to enter upon enquiry into the same in a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution and leave the party seeking the relief to approach an appropriate Court. As observed by the Orissa High Court in Laxman Swain v. Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Rourkela and another (60 (1985) CLT 10), the date of reaching age of superannuation must be determined on the basis of service record and not on what the employee claims unless service record is first corrected. Both the employee and the employer can dispute the date of birth indicated in the service record of the concerned employee, maintained by the employer. Such a dispute is to be resolved by the employer. Where employer seeks to effect change which shall result in employee reaching age of superannuation earlier, concerned employee has to be informed of the case of employer, material in support of the case, and an opportunity has to be granted to the employee to meet the materials. Where employee seeks to change the date to gain an advantage of postponing the date of superannuation, he has to substantiate it by placing material to establish his stand. 6. Unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature is made out by the concerned employee, a Court or Tribunal should not issue a direction for change of date of birth, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of his claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, onus is on the applicant to prove about wrong recording of his date of birth in his service book. The burden becomes heavier when the entry has been made on the basis of materials placed by the applicant himself, (see: The Secretary & Commissioner, Home Department and Others v. R. Kirubakaran - JT 1993 (5) SC 404). In the factual background delineated, learned single Judge was justified in not entertaining the Original Petition and we find no reason to interfere with the order. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.