JUDGMENT D. K. Seth, J.: When the petitioner entered into service, his date of birth was recorded as on 31st March, 1942 on the basis of the date of birth so recorded in the Admit Card issued by the Board. The petitioner was appointed in the University concerned sometimes in pi December, 1969. It is alleged that the petitioner had applied for correction of age as appearing in the Admit Card before he was appointed in the University concerned, namely, on 15th March, 1969. Thereafter the petitioner again applied on 17th December, 1969 in the form of reminder. Thereafter the petitioner again applied on 5th July, 1978. Ultimately, the Board having not taken any steps, the petitioner moved a writ petition, being W. P. No. 7822 (W) of 1999, which was disposed of by order dated 18th May, 1999 directing the Board to consider the petitioner's case after giving opportunity of hearing within a period of ten weeks from the date of communication of the order. It is alleged that the Board did not take any steps. Therefore, another writ petition, being W.P. No. 6040 (W) of 2000, was moved. This was disposed of on 27th April, 2001, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the said order by a speaking order. On the basis of the said direction, ultimately the age of the petitioner was corrected in the Admit Card as well as in the relevant certificate on 29th May, 2001. Thereafter the petitioner had made an application before the employer University for correcting the age recorded in the Age Register. The University by letter dated 5th October, 2001, intimated the petitioner that in terms of Ordinance 89(2) of Calcutta University 1st Ordinance, 1979, the prayer of the petitioner could not be acceded to. It is this order, which has since been challenged. 2. Affidavit-in-Opposition has been filed. The case of the respondents as made out therein is that the petitioner had given the date of birth at the time of appointment in 1969 is 31st March, 1942 which was accordingly entered in the Age Register of the University. The petitioner appeared in the B.A. Part-I Examination in 1974. The petitioner had given the date of birth as on 31st March, 1942 in the form filled up for the said examination, which is Annexure "P-1" to the Affidavit-in-Opposition. The petitioner appeared in the B.A. Part-I Examination in 1974. The petitioner had given the date of birth as on 31st March, 1942 in the form filled up for the said examination, which is Annexure "P-1" to the Affidavit-in-Opposition. On the basis of the age so recorded in the Age Register, notice was issued to the petitioner intimating him that he would be retiring on 31st March, 2002. This notice was served upon the petitioner on 2nd April, 2001. The petitioner had made an application for correction of the age on 20th June, 2001. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that in view of the Ordinance 89(2) of the Calcutta University First Ordinance, 1979, the age recorded in the Age Register cannot be altered on the basis of the subsequent correction of the age in the certificate since in terms of the said Ordinance, the age recorded in the Age Register becomes final and conclusive. That apart, the application has since been made for correction of the age at the fag end of the career though the petitioner could have applied for correction of the age long before. He had relied on various decisions in support of his contention to which reference would be made at appropriate stage. 3. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the case of the petitioner is quite different and distinguishable from the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents. In this case, the petitioner had applied for correction of age even before he entered into service. It is due to the inaction on the part of the Board that the petitioner could not make an application for correction of his age before the employer until such correction was effected by the Board in the certificate itself, which was the foundation for such correction. Since the age was recorded on the basis of the certificate and such certificate stands corrected, automatically the age stands corrected and the University has no alternative but to correct the age according to the certificate so corrected. The question of entry in the Age Register becomes final and conclusive depends on the certificate, on the basis whereof the age was so recorded. The question of entry in the Age Register becomes final and conclusive depends on the certificate, on the basis whereof the age was so recorded. In the present case, it was not any other document, on the basis whereof the age was so recorded in the Age Register, and that having been corrected there was no alternative to accept the prayer of the petitioner. He had distinguished each of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties at length. 5. The admitted fact that appears is that the petitioner was appointed on 1st December, 1969, when his age was recorded in the Age Register, maintained under the University of Calcutta, as on 31st March, 1942 on the basis of the Admit Card issued to the petitioner by the Board. It is alleged that the petitioner had applied for correction of his age, on the basis of the Admit Card as well as the certificate, on 15th March, 1969. But, no copy of such application is available on record. However, two reminders issued on 17th December, 1969 and 5th July, 1978 have been made part of the writ petition, being Annexures "P-2" and "P-3" respectively. These documents, however, did not disclose that it was ever served in the office of the Board. Be that as it may, this question cannot be gone into at this stage after the decision of the writ petitions in W.P. No. 7822 (W) of 1999 and W. P. No. 6040 (W) of 2000. On the basis of the order passed in the said two writ petitions, ultimately the age of the petitioner was corrected in the Admit Card and the certificate issued, on 29th May, 2001. In the mean time on 2nd April, 2001, the notice of superannuation, Annexure "P-9" of the writ petition, was issued to the petitioner. Writ Petition, being No. 6040 (W) of 2000, was disposed of on 27th April, 2001. In fact, until the correction was made by the Board, the petitioner could not have applied for correction of his age before the University. Therefore, the petitioner had made an application for correction of his age before the employer University on 20th June, 2001. Writ Petition, being No. 6040 (W) of 2000, was disposed of on 27th April, 2001. In fact, until the correction was made by the Board, the petitioner could not have applied for correction of his age before the University. Therefore, the petitioner had made an application for correction of his age before the employer University on 20th June, 2001. This prayer of the petitioner was turned down by the University by its letter dated 5th October, 2001 on the ground of Ordinance 89(2) of the Calcutta University First Ordinance, 1979. 6. In this background, the question is to be looked into. Admittedly, the age of the employee is to be recorded in the service record on the basis of the School Final Certificate or other certificates issued by the Board, as the case may be. 7. Regulation 89 of the Calcutta University First Ordinance, 1979 prescribes as follows:- "89. (1) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Business Affairs and Finance shall maintain a register to be called the 'Age Register' in which there shall be recorded in respect of every person employed in the University, being a teacher, Officer or any other employee of the University, in a form approved in this behalf by the Vice Chancellor, all particulars regarding the age, education, experience and such other matters as may be included in the form. (2) For any purpose of the University for which determination of the question of age of any person employed in the University is relevant, the entry regarding the age of such person in the age register shall be final and conclusive. (3) Entries in the age register regarding the age of any person employed in the University shall be made: (a) on the basis of the age recorded in the certificate, where available, of the Entrance, Matriculation, School Final, Madhyamik or Higher Secondary Examination or an equivalent examination passed by the person concerned; or (b) where no certificate referred to in clause (a) is available, on the basis of the age of the person concerned recorded in an affidavit and accepted by the appointing authority; or (c) where no certificate referred to in clause (a) is available and no affidavit referred to in clause (b) is acceptable by the appointing authority, on the basis of a decision arrived at by the appointing authority in respect of the age of the person concerned." 8. Thus, it appears from the above Ordinance that the Age Register is maintained and it is to be filled up at the time of entering into service and the entry made therein becomes final and conclusive. It further appears that such entry is to be made on the basis of the Entrance, Matriculation, School Final, Madhyamik or Higher Secondary Examination or any equivalent examination passed by the person concerned. In the present case, the petitioner had passed School Final Examination, which was accordingly recorded. On the allegation that the petitioner had applied for correction of the age in 1969, he had obtained two orders from this court as discussed above. But, the fact remains that when the petitioner appeared in the B.A. Part-I Examination in 1974, he had given the date of birth as on 31st March, 1942. The petitioner had never taken any steps for getting his age corrected in the certificate issued by the Board until 1999 when he was due to retire in 2002. 9. In fact, he had applied for correction of age before the Board at the fag end of his career. One of the factors to enable the Writ Court to invoke its jurisdiction is diligence on the part of a person seeking to invoke such jurisdiction. It seems that the petitioner had waited till 1999 to get his age corrected by the Board and could not get it done until the notice of superannuation was issued to him. Thereafter, he made an application for correction of his age only a few months before his superannuation. If the petitioner had come at the early stage, he might have raised this question and in such case the question would have been different. 10. Until 1999, the petitioner did not take any steps though it is alleged that he had applied for correction in 1969. There is no earthly reason why he had waited till 1999 for getting his age corrected on the basis of an application made in 1969. An application for correction of age, which is to be made in prescribed form, appears to have been made on 6th May, 1996. There is nothing to show that any such application was ever made to the Board in proper form before 6th May, 1996. An application for correction of age, which is to be made in prescribed form, appears to have been made on 6th May, 1996. There is nothing to show that any such application was ever made to the Board in proper form before 6th May, 1996. The order by which the age was corrected does not refer to any application to have been made in 1969 or those reminders made in 1969 and 1978 respectively and the Board had no occasion to deal with those two reminders. On the other hand, it had proceeded on the face of certain other materials to decide the question and corrected the age. 11. It is common experience of the High Courts and the Apex Court that an employee keeps quiet with regard to his age and comes before the Court at the fag end of the career and raise dispute with regard to the age recorded in the Service Book and on the basis of certain materials very often than not obtain interim order and continues till the period he desires to continue, sometimes even beyond that, by reason of interim order granted in those matters, taking advantage of the congestion in court, due to which the matters could not be taken up early. This has given an impetus to many a person to fabricate evidence and documents in order to secure such an advantage. Normally, such steps are taken at such a point of time when without interim order, the matter would appear to become infructuous. Situation for grant of interim order is also made out. This is done at the instance of such a person, who approaches the Court at the nick of time. One of the factors that entitles invoking writ jurisdiction is diligence. After having shown complete lack of diligence for these long years when he himself knows the date recorded in the service record, keeps quiet and wait on the fringe for an opportune moment to derive such benefits. The Apex Court had been continuously reminding of this situation in various decisions, some of which will be discussed hereafter. It is also a common experience of the High Courts that such is the situation. 12. The Apex Court had been continuously reminding of this situation in various decisions, some of which will be discussed hereafter. It is also a common experience of the High Courts that such is the situation. 12. In the present case, as discussed above, though this Court had passed order in two earlier writ petitions and the same cannot be questioned now, but when it comes to this Court for an appropriate order for correction of age, this Court is entitled to look into the attendant circumstances in order to find out, before granting relief, as to whether the petitioner had shown diligence or in other words, there was lack of diligence on his part. In the present case, though it is alleged that the application for correction of age was made before the Board in 1969, but the original application has not been shown to this Court. It was not shown that whether this application was at all served on the Board or not, the copies of the reminders do not show or bear any proof that these were delivered in the office of the Board. It might be a case of manufacturing documents, but then since the earlier order has clinched the issue, it is no more open to the Court to go into the said question. But the fact remains that since 1969, the petitioner did not take any steps until 6th May, 1996. Such an application to the Board is admittedly to be made in proper form. Unless such application is made in the proper form, the Board is not supposed to deal with it. The petitioner has not disclosed that any such application had ever been made in proper form prior to 6th May, 1996. However, even since 1996, the petitioner approached this Court only in 1999 knowing fully well that he will retire in 2002. Thus, the petitioner has shown complete lack of diligence on his part. He was never serious to get his corrected by the Board within a reasonable time. Even in 1974, while he appeared in B.A. Part-I Examination had given the same date as recorded in his service record. Between 1969 and 1974, except issuing one reminder, he did nothing and the second reminder was issued in 1978. He kept quiet till 1996. On this ground alone, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction. 13. Even in 1974, while he appeared in B.A. Part-I Examination had given the same date as recorded in his service record. Between 1969 and 1974, except issuing one reminder, he did nothing and the second reminder was issued in 1978. He kept quiet till 1996. On this ground alone, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction. 13. That apart, Regulation 89 provides for maintaining the Age Register where the particulars are required to be recorded. Regulation 89(2) provides that an entry regarding age of a person entered in such Register shall be final and conclusive. It does not prescribe any time as to within which correction could be applied for. Once a provision prescribes that the entry would be final and conclusive, the same can never be questioned and asked to be corrected unless it is made within a reasonable time after entry into the service and that too on the ground that there are glaring materials to correct it. The glaring materials are that there is any clerical or arithmetical mistake or any typographical omission or otherwise. If it is shown that the date, which the petitioner had shown on the basis of the relevant documents were not correctly entered or it was mistakenly entered, then it is a glaring mistake which is to be corrected or if it is shown that a document on the basis whereof such age is to be recorded, records a different age, it can be corrected. But, however, such document must be antedated to the date of appointment. A subsequent correction in such document does not entitle one to seek to change the correctness and conclusiveness and finality of the entry made in the Age Register, unless the statute provides for a provision for correction of age. Regulation 89 is completely silent with regard to correction of age. Therefore, on the basis of subsequent amendment in the certificate, no correction could be sought for, since the entry has become final on the basis of the age declared at the time of entry into the service. Regulation 89 having specifically provided for conclusiveness and finality of the entry into the Age Register, it cannot be altered except in exceptional circumstances as mentioned above. Regulation 89 having specifically provided for conclusiveness and finality of the entry into the Age Register, it cannot be altered except in exceptional circumstances as mentioned above. The petitioner may get his age corrected in the Admit Card or the School Final Certificate subsequent to his entry, but the same cannot be a ground to dispute the conclusiveness and finality of the entry made in the Register. However, it is alleged that the application was made before he entered into service. But, there is no proof that it was so made. The copy of the original application is not available. It is also not pointed out that such an application was made in proper form. Unless such application is made in a proper form, it cannot be said to have been applied for. The very fact that the petitioner had submitted an application in proper form in 1996 itself is a proof that the petitioner did not make the application in proper form earlier. Even if the petitioner asserts that he had made it in proper form, but it is the petitioner, who is to be blamed. Such an application cannot be traced out after long 30 years. The petitioner had made the application in 1996 of his own, not by virtue of any leave or direction of any Court. The circumstances shows as one of the stark instances of creating documents for the purpose of obtaining benefit of correction of age to continue in service. 14. The petitioner himself having given the date of birth in 1969 on the basis of the Admit Card and having accepted the said date of birth even at the time when he appeared in B. A. Part-I Examination and having not made any application before the employer for correction of age until 1999 and having not taken any steps before the Board to correct his date of birth recorded in the record of the Board effectively till 1996, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the correctness of the entry made in the Age Register. It is not a case where the conclusiveness and finality could be overlooked having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is not a case where the conclusiveness and finality could be overlooked having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In any event, subsequent correction or alteration of the Admit Card or the Certificate issued by the Board recording the age after entry into service, does not entitle a person to challenge the conclusiveness and finality of the Age Register, which is maintained under the statute and assumes, conclusiveness and finality due to statutory provisions. 15. A reference to the decisions cited and discussed hereinafter would support the view as discussed above. 16. The age becomes final and conclusive but it is subject to correction in certain cases where there are glaring discrepancies, but that too have to be done within a reasonable time. It was so held in the decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. T. V. Venugopalan, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 , in which the Apex Court had held in paragraph 7 of the said decision as follows: "7................It is seen that the respondent entered into the service on 12-1-1952 and only when he was due for superannuation at the age of 58 years on 31-8-1991, he made the application exactly one year before his superannuation. The Government rejected his claim before he attained the age of superannuation on 30-8-1991............This Court has, repeatedly, been holding that the inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth. The Government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the Service Register to be corrected, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the Service Register. It is common phenomenon that just before superannuation, an application would be made to the Tribunal or Court just to gain time to continue in service and the Tribunal or Courts are unfortunately unduly liberal in entertaining and allowing the Government employees or public employees to remain in office, which is adding an impetus to resort to the fabrication of the record and place reliance thereon and seek the authority to correct it. When rejected, on grounds of technicalities, question them and remain in office till the period claimed for, gets expired. This case is one such stark instance. When rejected, on grounds of technicalities, question them and remain in office till the period claimed for, gets expired. This case is one such stark instance. Accordingly, in our view, the Tribunal has grossly erred in showing overindulgence in granting the reliefs even trenching beyond its powers of allowing him to remain in office for two years after his date of superannuation even as per his own case and given all conceivable directions beneficial to the employee. It is, therefore, a case of the grossest error of law committed by the Tribunal, which cannot be countenanced and cannot be sustained on any ground. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs quantified as Rs. 3,000/-." 17. Similar view was taken in the decision in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. vs. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 155: AIR 1993 SC 2647 , as cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Reference may be made to the observation in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said decision, which run as follows:- "6. In the case of Executive Engineer vs. Rangadhar Mallik Rule 65 of the Orissa General Finance Rules, was examined which proves that representation made for correction of date of birth near about the time of superannuation shall not be entertained. The respondent in that case was appointed on November 16, 1968. On September 9, 1986, for the first time, he made a representation for changing his date of birth in his service register. The Tribunal issued a direction as sought for by the respondent. This Court set aside the order of the Tribunal saying that the claim of the respondent that his date of birth was November 27, 1938 instead of November 27, 1928 should not have been accepted on the basis of the documents produced in support of the said claim, because the date of birth was recorded as per document produced by the said respondent at the time of his appointment and he had also put his signature in the service roll accepting his date of birth as November 27, 1928. The said respondent did not take any step nor make any representation for correcting his date of birth till September 9, 1986. Recently in the case of Union of India vs. Harnam Singh, it was said (SCC p. 167, paragraph 7). The said respondent did not take any step nor make any representation for correcting his date of birth till September 9, 1986. Recently in the case of Union of India vs. Harnam Singh, it was said (SCC p. 167, paragraph 7). "A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay." "7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers, who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotions for ever. Case are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials, which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out be the respondent, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials, which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out be the respondent, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their dates of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the dare of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior." 18. Learned Counsel for the respondents had also cited the decision in Union of India vs. C. Ramaswamy, reported in 1997 (4) SCC 647 . In paragraphs 18 and 22 of the said decision, the Apex Court had held as follows: "18. Learned Counsel for the respondents had also cited the decision in Union of India vs. C. Ramaswamy, reported in 1997 (4) SCC 647 . In paragraphs 18 and 22 of the said decision, the Apex Court had held as follows: "18. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 16-A states that for the determination of the date of superannuation, the date is to be calculated with reference to the date of birth as accepted by the Central Government under this Rule. The use of the word 'accepted' in sub-rule (1) is indicative of the fact that except in a case where there may be a correction on account of bona fide clerical mistake having occurred the Central Government accepts, and does not determine the date of birth in the manner specified in sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3). Sub-rule (2) is applicable to a person appointed after commencement of the All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Amendment Rules, 1971. According to this, the date of birth of the appointees as declared in their applications for recruitment shall be accepted by the Central Government as the date of birth of such persons. The effect of this is that at least as far as post 4-12-1971 appointees are concerned the question of the Central Government accepting any date of birth other than that indicated in the application for recruitment to the service does not arise. The implication of this clearly is that with the insertion of new Rule 16-A(2), there would be no occasion for the Central Government to even entertain an application for alteration in the date of birth, as the Government is enjoined to accept only that date, which is declared by such person in his application for recruitment. This, of course, is subject to the limited circumstances under which correction can be effected under sub-rule (4) of Rule 16-A, namely, in cases where a bona fide clerical mistake had occurred in accepting the date of birth under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3). 22. It was faintly submitted that on the basis of the birth certificate obtained from the Sub-Registrar's Office by the respondent as well as his horoscope, it should be held that there was a bona fide clerical mistake and, therefore, the date of birth could be corrected. We are unable to accept the submission. 22. It was faintly submitted that on the basis of the birth certificate obtained from the Sub-Registrar's Office by the respondent as well as his horoscope, it should be held that there was a bona fide clerical mistake and, therefore, the date of birth could be corrected. We are unable to accept the submission. Bona fide clerical error would normally be one where an officer has indicated a particular date of birth in his application form or any other document at the time of his employment but, by mistake or oversight a different date has been recorded. In the present case, admittedly, the date of birth indicated in the application form filled in for the purpose of taking the competitive examination was that of 17-6-1939. This date was then incorporated in his descriptive roll kept in his service record and this was duly signed by the respondent. Admittedly, the respondent also believed this to be his correct date of birth, therefore, it was not a case where the date of birth 17-6-1939 had been incorrectly recorded in the Service Book as a result of any bona fide clerical mistake. In fact, in his original representation, it was not even suggested by the respondent that there had been any clerical mistake. The positive case put forth by the respondent was that it is after the demise of his mother that he had discovered that his real date of birth was 15-6-1941 and not 17-6-1939." 19. The Apex Court in the decision in G. M. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, West Bengal vs. Shib Kumar Daushad, reported in AIR 2001 SC 72 , had taken identical view as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents. The Apex Court in paragraph 15 of the said decision observed as follows:- "15. The Apex Court in the decision in G. M. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, West Bengal vs. Shib Kumar Daushad, reported in AIR 2001 SC 72 , had taken identical view as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents. The Apex Court in paragraph 15 of the said decision observed as follows:- "15. Before entering into the question of validity and sustainability of the judgment passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, in this case we would like to make the observation that in a case where the controversy over the date of birth of an employee has been raised long after joining the service and the matter has engaged the attention of the authority concerned and has been determined by following the procedure prescribed under Service Rules or General Instructions issued by the employer and it is not the case of the employee that there has been any arithmetical mistake or typographical error patent on the face of the record, the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the decision of the employer." 20. The above decision shows that such step can be allowed if it is taken within reasonable time. The petitioner had allowed the same situation to continue for the last 30 years during which he remained in employment and had applied before this Court in 1999 and not before. Thus, even if he had made an application before the Board, that was done at the fag end of his service career. The Apex Court in the decision in Burn Standard & Company vs. Dinobandhu Majumder, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1499 , held that the Court cannot entertain such application at the fag end of the career. 21. Mr. Banerjee had relied on the decision in Sishu Ranjan Das vs. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1997 (2) CLJ 428, wherein it was held that the age can be corrected and the employer is competent to correct the age in certain circumstances. But after the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents in Burn Standard & Company (supra), this decision cannot help us any further. 22. Even if the contention of Mr. Banerjee is accepted, but that can be done at least within the reasonable proximity. But after the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents in Burn Standard & Company (supra), this decision cannot help us any further. 22. Even if the contention of Mr. Banerjee is accepted, but that can be done at least within the reasonable proximity. The petitioner had attempted, one year before superannuation, to obtain benefit in writ jurisdiction and as such the petitioner has not shown diligence throughout. He only woke up from deep slumber at the fag end of his career in 1999. Till then he did not do anything. 23. In these circumstances, I am unable to accede to the contention of Mr. Banerjee. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. 24. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given. Writ petition dismissed.