Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-This writ petition has been preferred against order date 21.04.1994 (Annexure-2) of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur ("Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal has directed petitioner to make correction in date of birth of respondent No. 2 (appellant) from "05.04.1936" to "01.01.1937"and accordingly directed to grant consequential benefits. 2. Facts, in brief , are that respondent appellant joined Government service as Assistant Teacher on 20.10.1993 and continued in Education Department and while in service, he faced selection before Rajasthan Public Service Commission and was appointed as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 110.1979 and thereafter as Accounts Officer on 110.1980. 3. His date of birth recorded in Secondary School Examination Certificate is 05.04.1936 - on the basis of which he initially joined service in October, 1953, which was recorded in his service book and throughout his service career, 05.04.1936 remained recorded as his date of birth. 4. Respondent No. 2 raised his grievance that in vernacular final examination certificate, 1951, in which he appeared with Roll No. 732, his date of birth recorded is 01.01.1937 and because of clerical mistake, 05.04.1936 was recorded while he filled his examination form for appearing in Secondary School Examination in 1953. Since, October, 1977, several representations were made for change in his date of birth after placing reliance upon certificate issued of Vernacular Final examination as a basis before competent authority but the same was finally rejected and since he was going to retire from service, he preferred appeal before the Tribunal on 17.07.1993. The Tribunal summoned record of respondent Govt. servant and finally opined that in view of certificate of qualifying Vernacular Final Examination, there is sufficient evidence to support his date of birth as 01.01.1937, and accordingly, directed the State Government to change his date of birth as 01.01.1937 and granted him all consequential benefits vide order dt. 21.04.1994 (Annexure-2) Hence, this petition. 5. servant and finally opined that in view of certificate of qualifying Vernacular Final Examination, there is sufficient evidence to support his date of birth as 01.01.1937, and accordingly, directed the State Government to change his date of birth as 01.01.1937 and granted him all consequential benefits vide order dt. 21.04.1994 (Annexure-2) Hence, this petition. 5. The State Government challenged order of the Tribunal on the premises that there was no other material on record with Tribunal except certificate of Vernacular Final Examination-on the basis of which finding was recorded that there is sufficient material on record to support date of birth of appellant to be 01.01.1937, which is not legally sustainable, and the burden was on the appellant to place material on record in support of date of birth as, 01.01.1937, and mere certificate of 1951 could not be considered to be sufficient to uphold 01.01.1937 as his date of birth. The case of the State is that finding recorded by the Tribunal that a number of representations were made and documents were produced, where the fact is that except certificate of Vernacular Final Examination, there was no other material placed on record to support the contention of respondent appellant before Tribunal and merely because he has recorded date of birth in Vernacular Examination as 01.01.1937, that is not acceptable and sustainable in the absence of any supporting documents, which he fails to submit before Tribunal, and the premise on which Tribunal proceeded in recording such a finding for change of his date of birth as 01.01.1937, is totally perverse and is not supported by any legal evidence on record. 6. It has also been urged on behalf of the State that Tribunal committed error apparent on the face of record and without taking note of the fact that High School certificate was one of the valid documents for recognizing the date of birth, and on the basis of High School certificate (Annexure-6), respondent appellant entered into Government service; and through out his service career, his date of birth remained as 05.04.1936 and in support of contention, ibid, the petitioner placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. S.C. Chadha, 2004 (3) SCC 394 , and it has been urged that in light of this recent decision, finding recorded by Tribunal is not legally tenable. 7. 7. Counsel for petitioner State further contended that claim of change in date of birth at the verge of retirement of Government servant has always been deprecated by Apex Court, and without assigning reasons and contrary to material on record, the Tribunal has recorded finding on its own that sufficient material is available on record to support contention of respondent appellant in upholding his claim for change of date of birth as 01.01.1937. 8. Respondent appellant has filed reply to writ petition and submitted that under Rule 8 (2) (a) of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 ("RSR") by amendment vide notification dt. 24.01.1979, which was made effective from 01.01.1979 a rider was imposed that whatever date of birth has been recorded in service dossier before 01.01.1979, is final and cannot be changed even on request but such a provision was declared to be arbitrary by this Court in Samrathlal Joshi vs. State, 1985 RLR 443=1985 (1) WLN 309 and he has continuously pursued the matter before the Government with the request to change his date of birth and there was no delay in approaching the Tribunal in filing appeal even in July, 1993. 9. Shri Man Singh, Counsel for respondent appellant contended that there is no limitation or estoppal against an incumbent to represent for change of his date of birth in service career and if there has been a clerical mistake, it can always be ratified/corrected by Tribunal and the certificate, which has been furnished of Vernacular Final Examination, 1951 is a document issued by the Government, itself , wherein his date of birth is recorded as 01.01.1937 and there is no justification to disown such a date of birth which was a document admissible in evidence particularly when maintained by State Government and accordingly no error has been committed by Tribunal in taking overall material on record into consideration while recording finding of fact that his date of birth is 01.01.1937 and this Court should restrict itself to interfere in finding of fact which has been recorded after taking into consideration the material on record unless it is perverse of erroneous being not supported by material on record. 10. 10. Having considered rival contentions of parties and pondered over material on record, I find that it is respondent own admitted case that representations were made by him in Oct., 1977 and despite the same having been rejected, fresh representation was made and that too was rejected on 15.05.1993 but he preferred appeal on 17.07.1993 and the fact is undisputed that in High School examination certificate date of birth recorded stood unchanged throughout his service career and after he joined service in October, 1953, date of birth which was referred to in High School examination was noticed by him, which too was recorded in his service dossier, normally date of birth recorded in High School examination certificate is first basic document, and which has more probative value than all other documents and this has recently been examined by Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Mohinder Singh, AIR 2005 SCW 1476 , and no corresponding material in support of date of birth recorded in Vernacular Final Examination was placed on record before the Tribunal and only by his own saying, date of birth recorded in his Vernacular Examination could not be accepted on its face value. Even before this Court, no material has been placed on record to prima facie justify as to how and on what basis, he claims his date of birth as 01.01.1937, and on what premise, 01.01.1937 was recorded in Vernacular Examination Certificate. Even while entering into service, it was well known to the employee with regard to his date of exit, which is said to be date of superannuation, which is normally fixed and date of birth recorded in service dossier of employee can be noticed as to when he is going to be superannuated, but respondent made merely representations and despite rejection has approached the Tribunal only few months before his retirement. 11. 11. It is true that after Judgment of this Court in Samrathlal Joshi vs. State (Supra), be moved by employee whose date of birth was recorded before 01.01.1979 but the same can be considered only if there is any clerical error recorded in date of birth and which is supported by clinching material which can be held to be conclusive in nature is made out by employee and that too within reasonable time and the applicant has to produce evidence in support of such claim which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth, and the onus lies on the applicant to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service dossier. There is no clinching material placed by respondent on record before Tribunal and only premise on which Tribunal proceeded in holding his date of birth as 01.01.1937, was solitary certificate of Vernacular Final Examination, which in my opinion, cannot be considered to be sufficient to uphold claim of respondent appellant with regard to his date of birth as 01.01.1937 particularly when he failed to produce any sufficient cogent evidence to justify in respect of proof of his date of birth recorded therein as of 01.01.1937. 12. The Apex Court in recent decision in State of Punjab vs. S.C. Chadha, (Supra), held thus:-"Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service-book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalent in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, and it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. But, of late trend can be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of their retirement waking up from their supine slumber raise a dispute about their service records, by either invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or by filing applications before the concerned Administrative Tribunals, or even filing suits for adjudication as to whether the dates of birth recorded were correct or not." 13. In my opinion, finding recorded by Tribunal in holding date of birth of respondent appellant as 01.01.1937 is not supported by legal evidence on record particularly when he, himself , recorded his date of birth while appearing in High School Examination of 05.04.1936, which was through out maintained in service dossier since October, 1953 till retirement from service. 14. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and accordingly order date 21.04.1994 (Annexure-2) of the Tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs.