JUDGMENT : K.C. Sood, J. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment of the H.P. Administrative Tribunal dated September 29, 1997. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are: 3. Petitioner Dharam Singh was recruited and appointed as Driver by the respondent H.P. State Transport Corporation with effect from October 2, 1974. On his joining service, his date of birth came to be recorded as May 15, 1940 in the service record. It was recorded on the basis of the declaration made by him. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents to the effect that his date of birth was wrongly entered in the service record and that his actual date of birth in March 31, 1945. His representation was based on the premise that he came to know about the mistake in the year 1995 on checking the record in the Office. His representation was rejected by the Competent Authority (Annexure-P4). Dissatisfied, he approached the Tribunal praying for directions to the respondent Corporation to correct his date of birth as March 31, 1945. The claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal is based on the date of birth recorded on the photo copy of the Driving Licence (Annexure-P2) and School Leaving Certificate after passing Class-IV (Annexure-P1). 4. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner holding that the petitioner did not make representation for the correction of his date of birth within the time limited by the H.P. Financial Rules for this purpose. The Tribunal also found that neither the photo copy of the Driving Licence nor the School leaving certificate filed by the petitioner prove his date of birth, to be March 31, 1945 as claimed by him. 5. Heard Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Rule 7.1 of the H.P. Financial Rules provides for the entry of the date of birth in the Service Record and correction thereof. Rule 7.1 reads : "7.1. Every person newly appointed to a service or a post under Government should at the time at appointment declare the date of his birth by the Christian era with confirmatory evidence as far as possible, confirmatory documentary evidence such as matriculation certificate, municipal birth certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known an approximate date may be given. If the exact date is not known an approximate date may be given. The actual date or the assumed date determined under note-1 below should be recorded in the history of service, service book, or any other record that may be kept in respect of the Government servant's service under Government and once recorded, it cannot be altered except in the case of the clerical error, without the previous orders of the Government. Note 1.(a) If a Government servant is unable to state his exact date of birth but can state the year, or year and month of birth, to July or the 16th of the month, respectively, may be treated as the date of his birth. (b) If a Government servant is only able to state his approximate age, his date of birth may be assumed to be the corresponding date after deducting the number of year representing his age from his date of appointment. (c) When a Government servant who first entered military employ is subsequently employed in a civil department the date of birth for civil employment should be the date stated by him at the time of attestation, or if at the time of attestation he stated only his age the date of birth should be deducted with reference to that age according to the method indicated in sub-para (b) above. (d) (1) in regard to the date of birth a declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government service, shall as against the Government servant in question, be deemed to be conclusive unless he applies for correction of his age as recorded within 2 years from the date of his entry into Government service. Government, however, reserves the right to make a correction in the recorded age of the Government servant at any time against the interest of that Government servant when it is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book or in the history of services of a gazetted Government servant is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded with the object that the Government servant may derive some unfair advantage there from. (2) When a Government servant, within the period allowed, makes an application for the correction of his date of birth as recorded, an inquiry shall be made to ascertain his correct age and reference shall be made to all available sources of information such as certified copies of entries in the Municipal birth register, University or School age certificates, JANAMPATRI (horoscope) as the case may be. It should, however, be remembered that it is entirely discretionary on the part of the sanctioning authority to refuse or grant such application on being satisfied and no alteration should be allowed unless it has been satisfactorily proved that the date of birth as originally given by the applicant was a bona fide mistaken and that he has derived no unfair advantages there from. In case, the matriculation certificate is available, the date of birth recorded in the certificate will be deemed to be the correct age. (3) The result of every such inquiry should in the case of Gazetted/Non-Gazetted Government servants be briefly stated in their service cards/service books and if correction is sanctioned, the fact should be reported to the Accountant General." 7. It may be noticed that Note d (1) to this rule specifically provides that the date of birth as recorded in the Service record on the declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government service, is deemed to be conclusive unless he applies for the correction of his age, as recorded in the service record, within two years from the date of his entering into service. 8. Even when application is made within the time allowed under noted (1) to Rule 7.1, the date of birth can only be corrected after an inquiry, to ascertain the correct date of birth of such applicant from the available sources including certified copy of entries of the Municipal Birth Register, University or School age certificates, horoscope etc. 9. Correction in the date of birth cannot be made unless it has been satisfactorily proved by the concerned employee that the date of birth as originally given by the employee was a bona fide mistake and he has derived no unfair advantage there from. 10. In the present case, the applicant chose to file his representation after twenty-one years of service. 10. In the present case, the applicant chose to file his representation after twenty-one years of service. The explanation given by the petitioner that he came to know about the mistake in the record of his date of birth on checking of the record in the office, to say least is incredible. The respondent in its reply clearly state that the petitioner was recruited as a Driver on October 2, 1974. Now his date of birth was recorded on the basis of the declaration made by him. He never raised any objection as to recorded date of birth in the service record. It was only in 1995 that he made a claim that his date of birth has incorrectly been recorded. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had no occasion to see his service record. He does not say in what connection, he saw his service record. He also is silent whether he obtained any permission to look at his service record. It is difficult to believe the version given by the petitioner in absence of any evidence to this effect. 11. The rule of limitation prescribed under Rule 7.1 of the Financial Rules, noticed above, clearly indicates that application for correction of the case of birth by an employee can only be exterminated if such application is made within two years of the joining of his service. Now rule 7.1 was notified on April 10, 1985 and, therefore, application obviously could not be entertained after April 10, 1987 12. The Apex Court in 1993 (2) SCC 162 Union of India v. Harnam Singh laid down that the date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is of utmost importance as the right to continue the service of a civil servant depends on the age of the Government servant as entered in the service record and a Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of his employment though not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age but such request must be made within the time limited in the service rules after which no application for correction of a date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. The following observations in Hamam Singh are apposite : "It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time-limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous...." 13. Their Lordships noticed (Note-5 to F.R. 56 (m) governing correction of date of birth in the service record substituted by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms notification which provided that a request for the correction of date of birth is to be made within five years of his entry into the Government service. Their Lordships further held that request for correction of date of birth is required to be made by such Government servant within the stipulated period under the date. 14. The Apex Court once again in Secretary and Commissioner Home Department and others v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 stressed that the application should be made within the time fixed by any rule or order in this behalf. 15. In State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan (1994) 6 SCC 302 , noticing rule 49 (b) of T.N. State Subordinate Services Rules observed that a Government employee lose his right to make an application for the correction of his date of birth after the expiry of the period limited by the rules in this behalf. 16.'The Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. S.C. Chadha, (2004) 3 SCC 394 taking note of the rules framed by the States which prescribe the time within which a public servant can make request for the correction of the error in the date of birth as recorded in the service record, ruled that the object of such rules is that such claim regarding correction of date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades. 17. 17. In Executive Engineer Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and others v. Rangadhar Malik, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 763, Rule 65 of the Orissa General Financial Rules provided that representation for correction of date of birth about the time of superannuation shall not be entertained. In that case, the respondent represented for the first time on September 9, 1986 after about eighteen years of service for changing his date of birth in service record. The Tribunal issued a direction as sought by the respondent. The Court set aside the order of the Tribunal saying that the claim of the respondent for changing his date of birth from November 27, 1928 to November 27, 1938 ought not to have been accepted on the basis of documents produced in support of such claim as the date of birth was recorded as per documents produced by the said respondent at the time of his appointment and he has put his signatures in the service rolls accepting his date of birth as 27.11.1928. 18. In S.C. Chadha (supra), Their Lordships in para 11 of the judgment observed : "11. An application for correction of the date or birth should. not be dealt with by the Courts, 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 the promotion forever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an important and relevant 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. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an important and relevant 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 clear case on the basis of clinching materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provide in the rules governing the service, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials such make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for the 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 within at least a reasonable time. 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 about 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 be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended servants to approach the court or the tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date 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 date of superannuation. 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 date of superannuation. The Court or the tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim, relief or (sic of) 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 thereby caused injustice to his immediate junior." (emphasis given) 19. In the presence case, the petitioner has failed to produce any acceptable evidence least clinching material which can be held to be conclusive in nature to show that his date of birth in fact is March 31, 1945. The petitioner rely upon an entry of date of birth in the driving license which he claims to have been issued to him in 1966 photo copy of which is Annexure-P-2. Perusal of this photo copy shows that an entry of date of birth is made as 31.3.1945, even though there is no column for such an entry. The handwriting recording date of birth is different to the rest of the writing. The license itself stats that it is a duplicate license. Original was never placed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has adversely commented upon the entry of this license. Similarly, school leaving certificate is again a duplicate certificate issued by the School on December 10, 1996. This again is a photo copy of the duplicate certificate. The original was never produced before the Tribunal for perusal. The Tribunal rejected this document. Both these documents produced by the petitioner, in our view, are of doubtful nature and cannot be any stretch, be said to be in the nature of either clinching or irrebutable evidence. 20. From whatever angle we may look, the petitioner has no case. The impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal justifying interference. No merits. Dismissed.