Judgment 1. The appellant-Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) is aggrieved by the order dated 8.9.2000 passed in CWJC No. 8906 of 2000 by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he has set aside the order dated 28.6.2000 passed by the Board, Annexure-16, to the writ application, rejecting the representation of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 regarding determination of his age and directed the authority to refer the case of respondent No. 1 to the Medical Board for re-determination of his age. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as follows : Respondent No. 1 was appointed as unskilled Khalasi in the Board in the year 1968. Along with joining report, he submitted a medical certificate wherein.it was asserted that his date of birth was mentioned as 31.12.1946. The service book was opened on 2.5.1974 which bears the signature of respondent no. 1 and there the date of his birth has been mentioned as 8.9.1939. A gradation list of unskilled Khalasi was prepared in which date of birth of respondent No. 1 was mentioned as 31.12.1946. Respondent No. 1 was directed by the Board to produce educational certificate in support of his age. He did not produce any certificate of respondent No. 1 was issued informing him that he would retire from 30.9.1999 by treating his date of birth as 8.9.1939. Respondent No. 1 came to this Court in CWJC No. 7761 of 1999 alleging that wrongly his date of birth has been treated as 8.9.1939 and he disputed his date of birth and filed several representations, but the same has not been considered before issuance of the aforesaid notice. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 13.4.2000 directed the Secretary of the Board to consider the representation of respondent No. 1 and dispose of the same by speaking order. Thereafter, Secretary of the Board considered the matter and rejected the, representation of respondent No. 1 on the ground that the service book which has been signed by respondent No. 1 bears his signature where his date of birth was mentioned as 8.3.1939, signature on the medical report creates a doubt and no objection was raised to the wrong entry regarding date of birth in the service "book within the prescribed time in the rule, i.e., within ten years. 3. 3. The law is well settled that in a case of dispute regarding date of birth, if the rule prescribes a time for challenging the entry of date of birth in the service book, then that was to be challenged within the said period. If no period has been prescribed, then the prayer is to be made to correct the date of birth within a reasonable time and an employee cannot challenge wrong entry regarding date of birth in the service book at the fag end of his retirement. In this case when notice was issued to respondent No. 1 informing him that he would retire from 30.9.1999 by treating his date of birth as 8.9.1939, he came to this Court. This Court directed the Secretary of the Board to dispose of the representation of respondent No. 1 by speaking order, though it was filed beyond the prescribed time. The Secretary of the Board considered the matter and assigned reason for rejecting the same. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ application has not found any of the grounds given by the Secretary either to be incorrect or against the record. In our view, this Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the administrative authority. Once the authority, as directed by this Court, has given grounds, which are relevant grounds, to reject the representation of respondent No. 1, this Court cannot interfere with the said order only on the ground that a different view of the matter could be taken by this Court. There is no defect in the decision making process that the order passed by the authority suffers from lack of evidence, nor does it show arbitrariness on the part of the authority in disposing of the matter. This apart, as stated above, no objection was raised within the statutory period regarding wrong date of birth in the service book, admittedly signed by respondent no. 1. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the Board. 4. In the result, the order dated 8.9.2000 in CWJC No. 8906 of 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed.