In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order bearing No.R Pers (C)/ 217/ITI/88/Part-II/1786-88 dated18th July, 1998 passed by the Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Indranagar, Agartala (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) by which she was retired on super­annuation from service with effect from June 30,1998. 2. The petitioner joined service as a skilled Tailor in the Department of Industries in the year 1963 and she was subsequently promoted to the post of, Instructor. At the time of her entry into the service, her date of birth was recorded as 17.6.1940 and as such at the time of publication of Seniority List her date of birth was shown as such i.e. 17.6.1940 AD. The petitioner made representation for correction of her date of birth as 14.6.1942 AD and in this regard there were some correspondences between the petitioner and the authority concerned. According to the petitioner she submitted a copy of her School Certificate on c 26.8.1993. In the aforesaid copy of the School Certificate her date of birth, according to school records, has been shown as 14.6.1942 and this School Certificate has been issued by the Headmaster, No.3 (A) Junior Basic School, Agartala. Even after submission of the School Certificate, the Addl Director of Industries and Commerce, Tripura by his letter dated 24.11.1997 requested the petitioner to produce her School Certificate in original duly authenticated by Director/Deputy Director of School Education (Annexure 7). As a reply, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 30.12.97 to the Additional Director of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura, Agartala (Annexure 8). In that letter it was stated by the petitioner that certificate had already been submitted. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18th July, 1998 was passed. 3. As the matter involved correction of date of birth, the learned Government Advocate was directed to produce the service records of the petitioner. In the service records it has been found that originally the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 17.6.1940 AD. But subsequently the said entry was found scored through and an endorsement is found reading as "Date of birth is verified. Date of birth i s 14th June, 1942" and there is one signature below the endorsement t with the official seal of Assistant Director, Industries, Tripura and this endorsement is shown to have been made on 16.2.1991. 4. Mr. But subsequently the said entry was found scored through and an endorsement is found reading as "Date of birth is verified. Date of birth i s 14th June, 1942" and there is one signature below the endorsement t with the official seal of Assistant Director, Industries, Tripura and this endorsement is shown to have been made on 16.2.1991. 4. Mr. AL Saha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the original incorrect entry was corrected by the authority concerned and was such the petitioner's date of birth being 14.6.1942 AD hence the impugned order retiring the petitioner with effect from 30.6.1998 before the age of superannuation of 58 years is not tenable in law and the learned counsel has further submitted that once the date of birth has been found corrected as 14.6.1942 AD, any decision thereby modifying or altering, the aforesaid entry in the Service Book to the prejudice or against the interest of the petitioner without giving her any opportunity of hearing in this regard is bad in law even for violation of principle of natural justice. 5. Any correction of date of birth as recorded in the Service Book has to be done in accordance with the provisions of relevant Service Rules and Instructions. Correction of bona fide clerical errors may be made generally but the process for collection has to be initiated and correction if necessary has to be made at the a earliest. In our present case Mr. UB Sana, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate has drawn my attention to Annexure R/4 which is a memorandum dated 24th February, 1983 and the relevant provisions from the memorandum are quoted below : “Government of Tripura::: Administrative Reforms Department ”No.F.5(8)-ARD/81/ Memorandum Subject: Instructions regarding procedure to be followed in respect of request for alteration of date of birth of Government employees. In order to ensure that a proper policy is followed in this regard, it is hereby directed that the following procedure should be adhered to in regard to request for alteration of date of birth by all the Departments - (i) The instruction in the General Financial Rules referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 above should be properly followed in all cases. (ii) Any person claiming any alteration in the date of birth, should be required to furnish full reasons and adequate justification for the alteration supported by original documents that he seeks to rely upon. The dates of birth of different members of the family should also be furnished by him with supporting date so as to judge the conspiracy of the claim (iii) Any such request for alteration of the date of birth should be referred for enquiry to all concerned authority including District Magistrate and Collector of the District in which he was born; School/College/University; and any other agency related to the matter. (iv) An enquiry should specifically be done in place to which the employee belongs in order to verify the facts. This should be done by a Gazetted Officer of the Govt. (v) After detailed enquiries are completed and reports received, the Head of the office or Head of the Department should analyse the matter in detail and papers should be submitted to the Secretary of the Department concerned. (vi) No order for alteration of date of birth can be passed by any authority below the level of Secretary to Government. In the case of non-gazetted officer, the Secretary after scrutiny of the case should obtain the orders of the Departmental Minister. In the case of Gazetted Officer the orders of Chief Minister will be obtained through Chief Secretary and Departmental Minister. (vii) In case of complicated nature or where there are doubts on the veracity of the claim will be referred to Vigilance Organisation for an investigation. (viii) Where any person is found guilty of trying mislead or produces false documents, such adverse conduct will be taken note of with suitable entries in Annual Confidential Reports and for departmental proceedings. 5. These instructions should be strictly adhered to by all the Departments. Sd/-SR Sankaran, Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura.” 6. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that the endorsement noted above made by the Assistant Director of Industries is a nullity as he was not the authority as per the above memorandum and also the procedure prescribed in the aforesaid memorandum was never complied with. Again, the learned counsel submits that there is no supporting official records for any decision regarding correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. Again, the learned counsel submits that there is no supporting official records for any decision regarding correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. Finally the learned counsel submits that the concerned officer on the eve of his retirement might have done in the way he pleased without any authority of law. 7. At the time of initial entry, the petitioner submitted attestation form declaring her date of birth as 17.6.40 (Annexure R/l) and she reaffirmed the aforesaid entry by putting her signature in her Service Book regularly. The objection came only in the year 1982 which is 20 years after joining the service i.e. at the time of publication of Seniority List though she had not raised any objection when similar Seniority Lists were also published earlier i.e. in the year 1972, 1975 etc and as per her pleading, she submitted the copy of the School Certificate on 26.8.1993 (Annexure 5) but the aforesaid correction in the Service Book was made on 16.2.91 i.e. before the certificate was submitted to the office. Again, it appears that even after submission of this certificate on 26.8.1993 there were c letters/requests from the authority concerned for submission of certificate duly verified by the Director/Deputy Director of Education. This only suggests that no decision has been made with regard to the representations made by the petitioner for correcting her date of birth as 14.6.1942 AD. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the aforesaid entries made in the service records by an Additional Director of Industries, Tripura cannot be taken to be a valid and proper act in accordance with the above memorandum Annexure A/4. It is true that official acts may be presumed to have been regularly performed following the procedure therefor. A particular case has to be considered in the light of the attending circumstances. As noted above, Additional Director is not the authority to make such a decision and also for procedural infraction in making of any such decision, I have no hesitation to hold that the endorsement/correction in the Service Book of the petitioner is nullity in law. The submission of Mr. AL Saha that the order of superannuation at Annexure 9 was passed without giving any opportunity of being heard has no force. The submission of Mr. AL Saha that the order of superannuation at Annexure 9 was passed without giving any opportunity of being heard has no force. Even the petitioner in her pleading never mentioned that her date of birth had been corrected by the proper authority in accordance / with the provisions of law. She also never mentioned that she ever had knowledge regarding any correction to have been made by the Additional Director of Industries or of any communication having been made to her regarding that matter. If she never had any knowledge regarding the correction of her date of birth, any action taken by the Government by way of ignoring such an invalid act of which the petitioner also had no knowledge, may not be challenged on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. No right/interest was accrued to the petitioner by such an endorsement in her Service Book, which is nullity in the eye of law. I find no infirmity in the order under challenge. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities did not follow the Rule 56 of the CC (Pension Rules) is not relevant in the present case. 9. For the aforesaid reasons and decisions, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.