Judgment :- Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J. The appellant is working as a Fireman. He had joined service in the year 1985. At the time of joining service, he had given his date of birth as January 26, 1952. On January 8, 2002, the appellant submitted an application for correction of his date of birth. It was rejected by the Government, vide order dated July 2, 2002. A copy of the order is Ext. P4. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant approached this Court through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated August 13, 2002. Hence this appeal. 2. Mr.Chandran Pillai, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that an application for correction of the date of birth had been actually submitted on June 17, 1991 to the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala. It was accepted vide order dated July 3, 2001. Immediately thereafter, an application had been submitted to the Department for correction of the date of birth. A copy of the application dated September 22, 2001 is Ext. P3. Thus, there was no culpable delay on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the respondents had erred in rejecting the prayer for correction of the date of birth. 3. The short question that arises for consideration is – Have the respondents erred in rejecting the appellant’s prayer for correction of date of birth? 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter of correction of date of birth is governed by the Government Circular dated December 30, 1991. A copy of the Circular has been produced as Ext. P5. A perusal of the Circular shows that Government was faced with the problem of examining the issue regarding the correction of date of birth in a large number of cases. Invariably, applications were filed shortly before the employee was due to retire. Thus, to obviate such a situation, the Government had decided to impose a time limit. In this context, it was provided as under: “Still an opportunity can be granted during the initial periods of one’s service to make corrections in bona fide cases Government are pleased to adopt the system followed by Government of India in this matter. Thus, to obviate such a situation, the Government had decided to impose a time limit. In this context, it was provided as under: “Still an opportunity can be granted during the initial periods of one’s service to make corrections in bona fide cases Government are pleased to adopt the system followed by Government of India in this matter. They accordingly order in the modification of the existing orders that applications for correction of date of birth if any needed in the case of a Government Employee shall hereafter be made within five years of one’s entry in service. In the case of those who have already crossed this limit, one year time from the date of this order shall be allowed provided they apply beyond the two year period preceding retirement, reckoned with reference to the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book. The applications for correction of date of birth in Service Book shall be submitted to Government in the Administrative Department concerned, through proper channel.” 5. A perusal of the above shows that normally, an application for modification of the existing entry in the record could be made within a period of five years from the date of entry in service. However, keeping in view the fact that the period may have already expired in a number of cases, a limit of one year was fixed. Thus, applications could have been submitted till December 29, 1992. Admittedly, the appellant had submitted the application on September 22, 2001. There was a gross delay of more than eight years. The Government has chosen not to condone it. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the Government. 6. Mr.Chandran Pillai contends that it was essential for the appellant to get the entry changed in the school record before he could request for a change in the service record. 7. The contention cannot be accepted. The record, on the basis of which the appellant wanted the correction in his date of birth, could have been easily placed by him before the competent authority. On the basis of that record, he could have requested for the necessary correction. The instructions did not prohibit the submission of an application till the correction in the school record. The appellant had failed to do so. 8. On the basis of that record, he could have requested for the necessary correction. The instructions did not prohibit the submission of an application till the correction in the school record. The appellant had failed to do so. 8. Mr.Chandran Pillai submits that according to the instructions issued by the Government, the appellant was incompetent to support his claim by filing the additional copy of the school record. We have perused the provision. It does not debar the employee from seeking correction without his having approached the school authorities for getting the correction made therein. It only requires that necessary evidence including the school record can be produced along with the application for correction of date of birth. It can happen that an entry in the school record may have been got corrected even before joining service. Thus, a provision for producing the school record (original or corrected) along with the application has been made. 9. Before parting with the case, it may also be mentioned that a writ court cannot normally decide disputed questions of fact. This difficulty is all the more greater in cases where contentious issues like the date of birth have to be settled. In such cases, it would be appropriate for the aggrieved party to approach a Civil Court rather than this Court. 10. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. It is consequently dismissed.