JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. This writ petition seeks to challenge an order dated 24.4.2002 by which the representation of the writ Petitioner for correction of his date of birth has been rejected by the Respondents. Another order dated 23.1.2003, which the writ Petitioner contends, has the effect of prematurely retiring him from service is an incidental aspect of the challenge in the present writ application. 2. I have heard Mr. S.K. Sarma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Miss. U. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 3. The facts in brief may be noticed at the outset. The Petitioner joined service in the post of Lower Division Assistant under the Corporation in the year 1972. He was initially posted at Nagaon. According to the Petitioner, at the time of his entry into service he had submitted his matriculation certificate to the Respondent authorities which, on due calculation, showed his date of birth to be 1.2.1947. According to the Petitioners, from the year 1972 to 1999 he was posted out of Nagaon and as the service record of the Petitioner remained with the Respondent authorities at Nagaon he had no occasion to look into the same. However, sometime in the year 1984, according to the Petitioner, he was asked, once again, to submit a copy of his matriculation certificate which request was duly complied with by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has stated and averred in the writ petition filed that it is only in the month of December 1999 that he could come to know that his date of birth has been wrongly recorded in the Service Book as 1.2.1945 and thereafter very promptly he had filed a representation dated 31.1.2000 praying for correction of his date of birth. As the said representation was not responded to, the Petitioner submitted another representation/reminder and on the basis thereof the authority had passed an order on 24.4.2002 rejecting the representation/representations filed by the Petitioner. Thereafter, as a sequel to the aforesaid decision of the authority not to correct the date of birth of the Petitioner, he was prematurely retired from service on the last working day of the month of January 2003. Aggrieved, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Thereafter, as a sequel to the aforesaid decision of the authority not to correct the date of birth of the Petitioner, he was prematurely retired from service on the last working day of the month of January 2003. Aggrieved, the writ petition has been filed. 4. The case projected by the writ Petitioner has been resisted by the Respondents by filing an affidavit wherein it has been stated that at the time of Petitioner's entry into service he did not submit his matriculation certificate, as asserted. However, at that time his date of birth was recorded in the Service Book as 1.2.1945 on the basis of the statements made by the Petitioner to the said effect. The Respondents, in the affidavit filed, have also denied that the Petitioner was asked to submit his matriculation certificate in the year 1984 and that the Petitioner had filed any representation dated 13.1.2000, as claimed by him. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner had, for the first time, in the year 2002 filed a representation seeking a different date of birth than what was recorded in the service book and as the said representation was belated and not filed within the stipulated period of three years earlier than the date of retirement, the same was rejected. The Respondents have specifically averred in the affidavit filed that the retirement of the Petitioner made with effect from 31.1.2003 is legal and valid. 5. A consideration of the arguments and counter arguments advanced on behalf of the parties demonstrate that on certain crucial areas there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the facts that will be necessary to adjudicate this writ petition. While the Petitioner has asserted that he had submitted his matriculation certificate at the time of his entry into service the said fact has been denied by the Respondents. The Petitioner had also asserted that for the first time he had submitted a representation on 13.1.2000 which representation, according to the Respondents, was not received by them. In such a situation, when the Court is unable to ascertain the correct facts, the only conceivable way in which an adjudication can be offered to the writ petition is on the basis of what has been revealed by the official records maintained by the Respondents which records have been placed before the Court. 6. In such a situation, when the Court is unable to ascertain the correct facts, the only conceivable way in which an adjudication can be offered to the writ petition is on the basis of what has been revealed by the official records maintained by the Respondents which records have been placed before the Court. 6. The said records, on due scrutiny, has revealed that the date of birth of the Petitioner in his service record was entered as 1.2.1945 and the same was verified and countersigned by the authorities of the Corporation sometime in the year 1990. That apart, the official records produced at the hearing does not indicate that the Petitioner's claimed representation dated 13.1.2000 was received by the Respondents at any point of time. In the above facts, the Court will have to proceed on the basis that the date of birth of the Petitioner was recorded in the service record as 1.2.1945 and that the Petitioner had sought a correction in the said date of birth at the fag end of his career and just before his impending retirement in January 2003. On the materials available it is also not possible for the Court to proceed on the basis that the date of birth as recorded in the service book of the Petitioner was without his knowledge and consent. 7. The note appended to S.R 8 makes it abundantly clear that no request for change of date of birth of a Govt. servant should be entertained if such request is not made within three years of the date of his superannuation. The power of the authority to refuse to effect a change in the date of birth of an incumbent if a request for such change is not made within a period of three years before the retirement of the incumbent has been upheld by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of State of Assam and Anr. v. Daksha Prasad Deka and Ors. reported in 1970 (3) SCC 624 . Even dehors the provisions of S.R. 8, the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Anr. v. Daksha Prasad Deka and Ors. reported in 1970 (3) SCC 624 . Even dehors the provisions of S.R. 8, the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Anr. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 49 has laid down the law that in case the Service Rules provide a particular time frame within which a request for change of date of birth is to be made such time schedule must be adhered to and in case the Service Rules do not provide any such specific time frame a request for change of date of birth must be made within a reasonable time. The basis on which the Courts should refuse to entertain a belated claim for change/alteration of the date of birth has been laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Dinaband.hu Majumdar and Anr. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1499 . The principle deducible from the above decision is that entertaining a belated request for change of date of birth has the effect of causing a chain reaction in so far as others waiting in the queue are concerned. Consequently, the Apex Court has laid down the law that while considering a request for change of date of birth regard must be had not only to the case of the claimant but also to that of his juniors in service. 8. In the present case, as already indicated, the Court has decided to proceed on the basis that the initial date of birth recorded in the Service Book of the Petitioner was with the knowledge and consent of the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims to have filed an application for alteration of his date of birth on 13.1.2000 i.e. beyond the period of three years as stipulated in S.R. 8 but the said representation is not available in the records and the Respondents, in the affidavit filed, have denied receipt of the same. The only available representation of the Petitioner is the one filed in the year 2002 which is within the period of three years of the retirement of the Petitioner and therefore within the mischief that is sought to be prevented by the Note appended to S.R. 8. The only available representation of the Petitioner is the one filed in the year 2002 which is within the period of three years of the retirement of the Petitioner and therefore within the mischief that is sought to be prevented by the Note appended to S.R. 8. Even otherwise, the approach of the Petitioner for the alteration of his date of birth in the service record cannot, in the facts noticed above, be construed to have been made within a reasonable time as laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.R v. Shiv Narayan Upadhaya (supra). 9. An argument has been sought to be advanced by Sri Sarma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the Respondents have not denied or disputed the correctness of the matriculation certificate of the Petitioner which actually reveals that the date of birth of the Petitioner should is 1.2.1947. On the said basis Sri Sarma., learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that what the Petitioner had sought is not an alteration but a correction of his date of birth. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the provision of S.R. 8 and the law laid down by the Apex Court will have no application to the present case. Reliance has been placed by Sri Sarma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner on a judgment of this Court in the case of L. Iboyaima Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors. reported in (1997) 2 GLR 53. in which judgment, according to the learned Counsel, this Court had laid down the law that when it comes to correction of date of birth on the basis of matriculation certificate such correction can be made at any time. 10. The argument advanced by Sri Sarma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that what the Petitioner had sought is not a change but a correction in the date of birth as recorded in the service record ought not to find favour of the Court. In the last resort, what transpires is that the Petitioner, at the fag end of his service career, armed with his matriculation certificate had sought an alteration of the date of birth as originally recorded in his Service Book. Whether the said alteration amounts to a change or a correction is merely to play around with words. In the last resort, what transpires is that the Petitioner, at the fag end of his service career, armed with his matriculation certificate had sought an alteration of the date of birth as originally recorded in his Service Book. Whether the said alteration amounts to a change or a correction is merely to play around with words. What S.R. 8 prohibits and the several judgments of the Apex Court frowns upon is a belated approach for such alteration as entertaining such a belated approach has the effect of unsetting the hopes of the juniors in service for promotion to the higher posts in the department. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the Division Bench judgment in L. Iboyaima Singh (supra) also appears to be misplaced. In L. Iboyaima Singh (supra) the Division Bench was dealing with a situation where the date of birth was corrected to the detriment of the employee by the Government by relying on the matriculation certificate. The argument advanced in L. Iboyaima Singh (supra) in support of the challenge made as against the Governmental action is that the said alteration could not have been made without notice or opportunity to the Petitioner. As the correction was made on the basis of the matriculation certificate, it was held by the Division Bench that the action impugned will not fail on the ground of lack of opportunity. The point at issue in L. Iboyaima Singh (supra), on the arguments raised, was whether such an alteration could have been made without hearing the effected party and without giving such party an opportunity. The rule of Stare decisis requires the decision rendered in a judicial pronouncement to be confined to actual determination in respect of what is litigated and therefore decided and is not applicable to what may be termed as dicta or obiter dicta. The point arising in L. Iboyaima Singh (supra) being what has been noticed, the reliance placed on the aforesaid decision by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to drive home the point that correction of date of birth on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate can be made at any time can hardly be accepted by the Court. 11. In the light of the foregoing discussions and for the reasons enumerated above, I am of the view that the relief prayed for in this writ petition ought to be refused. 11. In the light of the foregoing discussions and for the reasons enumerated above, I am of the view that the relief prayed for in this writ petition ought to be refused. Accordingly, I dismiss the writ petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed