RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) THE controversy involved in this writ petition is as to what is the correct date of birth of the petitioner. ( 3 ) THIS petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in all the documents and certificates issued by the educational and other authorities. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, 1. 1. 1959, an incorrect date of birth, has been recorded in all the documents including his Service Book and certificates issued by the educational authorities. He claims that his correct date of birth is 5. 7. 1963. ( 5 ) IT appears that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Accountant in the U. P. State Road transport Corporation. The date of birth recorded in the Service Book of the petitioner is 1. 1. 1959 on the basis of his High School certificate, The petitioner moved an application to the secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. , Allahabad for correction of his date of birth as 5. 7. 1963 but the same is still pending decision, hence this writ petition. ( 6 ) THE facts of the case, in brevity, are that the petitioner alleges that he had taken his primary education from the Prathamik Vidyalaya Munari, Chaubepur as is apparent from the transfer certificate (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) issued by the Headmaster of the Primary School munari, Chaubepur and counter signed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi on 3. 11. 1998. According to the transfer certificate the petitioner alleges to have studied at the Prathamik vidyalaya Munari, Chaubepur up to V Class and his date of birth is 5. 7. 1963. The petitioner farther alleges to have submitted his original transfer certificate to the Principal, Veer Lorik intermediate College, Dhureshwari Dham, Gosaipur Mohan, Varanasi at the time of taking admission is Class VI. ( 7 ) THE counter for the petitioner submits that after the education of the petitioner up to Class VIII in the Veer Lorik Intermediate College, the Principal issued the transfer certificate (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner as 1. 1. ( 7 ) THE counter for the petitioner submits that after the education of the petitioner up to Class VIII in the Veer Lorik Intermediate College, the Principal issued the transfer certificate (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner as 1. 1. 1959 arbitrarily and against the record on the basis that the petitioner had taken education up to VII Class at home and had not studied in any school up to Class VII before taking admission in the said College. The Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had submitted his original transfer certificate issued by the Principal of the Veer Lorik Intermediate College at the time of admission in Class IX in Subhash Intermediate College, Chaubepur. He passed High School examination as a regular student in the year 1978 from the Board of High School and intermediate Education, U. P. , Allahabad. In the High School certificate issued by the Board of high School and Intermediate Education, U. P. , Allahabad the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 1. 1. 1959 on the basis of Class VIII certificate. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that as soon as the petitioner came to know that an incorrect date of birth has been recorded in his High School certificate he moved a representation to the Principal of the Veer lorik Intermediate College for correction of his date of birth as 5. 7. 1963 on the basis of the transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster of Prathamik Vidyalaya Munari, Chaubepur but to no avail. ( 8 ) IN paragraph 3 (B) of the counter affidavit it has been averred that for the first time the petitioner has made the representation for correction of his date of birth on 29/30. 9. 1984 to the principal of the Veer Lorik Intermediate College followed by representations dated 10. 4. 1989, 12. 10. 1989 and 18. 10. 1990 and the representation dated 15. 4. 1989 to the Regional Manager, u. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Faizabad Zone, Faizabad while he was issued High school certificate in 1978 itself in which year he passed the High School examination. 4. 1989, 12. 10. 1989 and 18. 10. 1990 and the representation dated 15. 4. 1989 to the Regional Manager, u. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Faizabad Zone, Faizabad while he was issued High school certificate in 1978 itself in which year he passed the High School examination. In paragraph 3 (C) it is further stated that if there is any mistake in the High School certificate, the same may be got corrected within two years of the issuance of the High School certificate under regulation 7 (Chapter III) of the Regulations (as amended in the year 1983) framed under the u. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The petitioner made such a representation on 27. 11. 1998, which is highly time-barred. ( 9 ) THE Counsel for the respondents in support of his contentions has relied upon decision of this court rendered in Rajendra Prasad Singh v. State of U. P. and Anr. , 1994 (24) ALR 173, wherein it has been held that it is the candidate who has to declare his date of birth in examination form and the Board cannot examine its correctness. It is further held that the Board is required to make correction in the High School certificate if there is any omission or error on the part of the Board but the Board has no jurisdiction to inquire as to what is the correct date of birth even if an incorrect date of birth be given by the examine in his examination form. ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner came to know about the fact of incorrect recording of his date of birth in the transfer certificate on 30. 6. 1976 issued by the Principal of the Veer Lorik intermediate College. It is also apparent that the petitioner had filled in and signed his date of birth as 1. 1. 1959 in the examination form of High School before appearing in the examination. This date is also given in the High School certificate, a photostat copy of which is annexed as annexure 3 to the writ petition. It is admitted fact that the date of birth of the petitioner as 1. 1. 1959 is recorded in his Service Book on the basis of High School certificate. This date is also given in the High School certificate, a photostat copy of which is annexed as annexure 3 to the writ petition. It is admitted fact that the date of birth of the petitioner as 1. 1. 1959 is recorded in his Service Book on the basis of High School certificate. It is further apparent from Annexure 2 to the writ petition that the petitioner had not studied in any school up to Class VII and had taken admission direct in Class VIII in Veer Lorik Intermediate College after taking education at home up to Class VII. ( 11 ) THE transfer certificate alleged to have been issued by the Headmaster of a primary school is not an incorrigible document. In the transfer certificate issued by Principal of the Veer Lorik intermediate College and in the High School certificate as well as the Service Book of the petitioner the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 1. 1. 1959. It is settled law that in case of dispute about the date of birth, the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book should be taken as the authenticated date of birth as this date of birth is recorded on the basis of High school certificate. If there was any mistake in the date of birth entered into his Service Book the petitioner ought to have moved an application at the very initial stage immediately when the mistake came to his knowledge in 1978 or when he had first signed his Service Book after the same was prepared. The assertion of the petitioner that he moved the representation immediately on coming to know about his incorrect date of birth is falsified from the records. ( 12 ) THE present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. In this view of the matter, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the educational authorities to correct the date of birth of the petitioner and hence the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this is not a case for interference under Article 226 of the constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. . .