Order Heard the parties. The appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.2.2003, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P (S) No. 3453 of 2001. According to stamp report dated 25.4.2003 limitation for filing the appeal expired on 25.4.2003, whereas it was filed on 14.5.2003. Hence, I.A. No. 1175 of 2003 at flag 'L’ has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of said delay. It appears that the memorandum of appeal was presented in this Court on 25.4.2003 itself, which was the last date for filing the appeal. The stamp reporter pointed out certain defects, which could be removed by the counsel only on 14.5.2003 and on the same date it was filed. Hence, we find that the aforesaid delay was caused due to the laches on the part of the counsel and for that the appellant cannot be held responsible. So there was no laches on his part. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. The appellant was working as Operator M.E. in operation garage. He approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to make necessary correction in his date of birth, as recorded in personal data form. 3. At the time of interview, for the post of Khalasi in Bokaro Steel Plant, held on 29.6.1972, the appellant disclosed his age to be 27 years and his previous experience of working in the Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited for the period from 1.9.1964 to 27.5.1967. 4. After his appointment on the post of Khalasi, in his personal data form, his date of birth was recorded as 4.12.1950 i.e., 22 years at the time of appointment. The said entry was penned through and his age was recorded as 27 years. 5. At the time of joining service on 5.12.1972 on his statement his age was recorded in P.D. Form as 27 years and he had put his signature below the said entry. 6. In the Medical book issued to him in 1987 he had wrongly mentioned his date of birth as 4.12.1950, which was subsequently corrected by Personnel Department, when it was detected. 7. According to the appellant, the aforesaid correction/interpolation was made without his conscious knowledge. 6. In the Medical book issued to him in 1987 he had wrongly mentioned his date of birth as 4.12.1950, which was subsequently corrected by Personnel Department, when it was detected. 7. According to the appellant, the aforesaid correction/interpolation was made without his conscious knowledge. Further, he being a person unable to speak, read and write English language, his signature against the said correction can not be utilized by the Management to the extent that he had information/knowledge thereof and, as such, the said correction, having done in his absence, without his knowledge, attached non-compliance of the principle of natural justice. 8. The writ application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner's contention that there was interpolation in the P.D. Form, Annexure A and his date of birth should be corrected as 4.12.1950, as was entered originally, was not correct and he was not entitled to any relief. 9. In the present case, question of determination of the actual date of birth of the appellant is not involved. Here the controversy is confined to the appellant's objection to the correction made in his P.D. Form, which was alleged to have been made by the Management without his knowledge. 10. We feel difficulty to accept the objection in face of the fact that signature of the appellant is already there and, therefore, unless the appellant succeeds on evidence in proving the circumstances under which he had put his signature on the correction in question, there is no occasion of violation of the principle of natural justice. 11. This exercise, in our view, is not possible in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. We, therefore, are of the view that the remedy, as sought for in the writ application, was not available to the appellant. The appellant is at liberty to get his grievances redressed before the competent Forum, in accordance with law. 12. In such circumstances, the observations/findings, if any, recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 26.2.2003 on the merit of the appellant's case and claim shall not come in the way of the competent forum in deciding the lis on its own merit in accordance with law. 13. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned' order of the learned single Judge. With the aforesaid observation/directions this Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of.