JUDGMENT T.N.K. Singh, J. 1. The short facts, which will be required for deciding the present writ petition, are that; he entered for the first time in the service of the Government of Nagaland as Village Level Worker (VLW) cum-Fishery Demonstrator in the District Agriculture Office, Kohima vide order dated 12.4.1969. Admittedly at the time of entering service, his Service Book was open and his date of birth was recorded as 1.6.1948 on the information furnished by the Petitioner. His date of birth i.e. 1.6.1948 recorded in the Service Book was countersigned by the Petitioner, as he had clear opportunity to see his date of birth recorded in the Service Book and he being literate person knew his date of birth i.e. 1.6.1948 recorded in his Service Book he counter signed on the Service Book. The case of the Petitioner is that at the time of entering in the service, Petitioner was asked to submit his original HSLC Admit Card and Mark-sheet by the concerned officers at the time of opening his Service Book, wherein his date of birth had been entered as 1.6.1948 wrongly instead of 1.2.1951. The Petitioner did not notice the mistake in recording his date of birth as 1.6.1948 in his Service Book, even if he counter-signed by putting his signature and thumb impression on it as asked by the concerned authority. 2. The Petitioner, said error in recording his date of birth, came to know only in the year, 1972 when a seniority list for VLW-cum-Fishery Demonstrator was published and immediately he submitted a representation to the then Director for rectification of the said error. On verbally convinced the Petitioner by the then Director that since he had submitted his original HSLC documents he need not worry as over-writing his Service Book would stigmatized as tampered in the near future. But the Petitioner could not produce a copy of the said representation said to have been filed in the year, 1972 for correction of his date of birth, State Respondents in their counter affidavit had strenuously denied the submission of the said representation in the year, 1972 to the then Director, i.e. Director of Fisheries, Government of Nagaland. The State Respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition had clearly stated that there was no such record of filing any application by the Petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the year, 1972. The State Respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition had clearly stated that there was no such record of filing any application by the Petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the year, 1972. As per the date of birth i.e. 1.6.1948 recorded in his Service Book, the Petitioner had to retire on superannuation on 31.5.2005. The further case of Respondents is that at the fag end of his service, as requested by the Petitioner for correction of his date of birth recorded in the Service Book as 1.2.1951 instead of 1.6.1948, for the simple reason that date of birth of the Petitioner entered in the Service Book does not tally with the HSLC Examination Admit Card (not Matriculation Certificate), the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Fisheries wrote a letter dated 1.10.2002 directing the Addl. Director of Fisheries to conduct an inquiry in respect of the alleged irregularity committed in the Service Book in recording date of birth of the Petitioner. The Additional Director, Fisheries, Mr. Senli Ao. Government of Nagaland under his letter being No. FY/PERS 29/70/71/1643 dated 1.10.2002 informed the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Fisheries that an Inquiry Committee consisting of 1) Shri Senli Ao, Additional Director of Fisheries, 2) Shri B.S. Thatal, Superintendent, Planning, Directorate of Fisheries, 3) Shri P. Ivulho Shone, Superintendent, Establishment, Directorate of Fisheries was constituted and it had been pointed out that date of birth recorded in the Admit Card issued by the Board of Secondary Assam does not tally with the date of birth recorded in his Service Book. It is also the case of the Petitioner that one Shri Murohu Chotso, Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland who had visited the Board of Secondary Education, Assam to verify the date of birth of the Petitioner recorded by the Board had submitted a report under his Letter dated 11.11.2002 to the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Fisheries Department that: "The Assistant Controller of Examination, has produced the original book of record to me for my eye witness of the record from his table itself. And from its Record Book, it was found that Shri I. Shovukhu Sema, was a regular candidate from Govt. High School, Suruhoto in Nagaland, and in its H.S.L.C. Exam, at Mokochung his Roll No was RoLL MOKOK No. 136, IN 1967. And from its Record Book, it was found that Shri I. Shovukhu Sema, was a regular candidate from Govt. High School, Suruhoto in Nagaland, and in its H.S.L.C. Exam, at Mokochung his Roll No was RoLL MOKOK No. 136, IN 1967. His age was 16 (sixteen) years and 1 (one) month. Hence, it is found that the actual date of birth in respect of the officer is 1st February, 1951 (1.2.1951). However, no written from the said Board authority could be taken due to the heavy engagement of the officers at the office of the Secondary Board of School Education, Assam, Guwahati, since the concerned officer was already left office for an interview at another town." Shri Murohu Chotso, Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland under his letter being No. FY/ESYY-1/7/97. Dated Kohima the 18.1.2003 had conveyed to the Additional Director, Fisheries, Government of Nagaland that actual date of birth as per the 1967 HSLC Admit Card is 1.2.1951 and not 1.6.1948 as such, in all the official entries including the Service Book of the Petitioner, date of birth of the Petitioner as 1.2.1951 may be entered. Accordingly, Shri Senli Ao, Addl. Director of Fisheries, Government of Nagaland had issued notification being No. FY/ESTT-7/2002-05 (PT) dated 26.8.2003 that as per HSLC Admit Card, date of birth of the Petitioner, Shri Shovukh Sumi is corrected and stand as 1.2.1951. All the official entries including in his Service Book his date of birth may be recorded as 1.2.1951 and also that the said notification has approval and authentication by the said letter of the Under Secretary, Shri Murohu Chotso. From the above fact, it is clear that the same person, Shri Murohu Chotso, had inspected the original Book of Record maintained by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, Guwahati and also he issued the said letter dated 18.1.2003. Shri Senli Ao, Addl. Director of Fisheries who had constituted the said Board of Inquiry had issued the said notification dated 26.8.2003 for correction of the date of birth of the Petitioner at the fag end of his service. Shri Senli Ao, Addl. Director of Fisheries who had constituted the said Board of Inquiry had issued the said notification dated 26.8.2003 for correction of the date of birth of the Petitioner at the fag end of his service. The further case of the Petitioner is that about a year after the correction of the date of birth, the Respondents surprisingly issued the notification bearing No. FY/ESTT-1/7/97 dated 8.7.2004 for nullifying the previous notification dated 26.8.2003 for correction of date of birth of the Petitioner as 1.2.1951, which reads as follows: Government of Nagaland Fisheries Department. NOTIFICATION Dated Kohima, the 8th July 2004 No. FY/ESTT-1/7/97: In accordance with the P and AR Department's O.M. No. AR-3/GEN-108/2003 dated 4.12.2003 the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to notify that the date of birth in respect of Shri K. Shovukhu Sema, District Fishery Officer Zunheboto will remain as on 1.6.1948 (1st June one thousand nine hundred forty eight) which was first recorded in his service Book during the time of his joining in the service and not as on 1.2.1951 which was recorded later without Govt, approval. 2. This has the clearance of the P and AR Department vide letter U.O. No. 633 dated 21.6.04. 3. This issue in cancellation of the Directorate of Fisheries Notification No. FY/ESTT-7/2002-03 (Pt) dated 26.8.03 and this department letter No. FY/ESTT-1/7/97 dated 18.1.03. Sd/-V. Sekhose Secretary to the Govt, of Nagaland Dated Kohima, the 8th June 2004 Hence, the present writ petition for quashing the said impugned notification dated 8.7.2004. 3. The Respondents filed their joint affidavit-in-opposition specifically mentioning that as per Service Book, the Petitioner's date of birth is 1.6.1948 and not 1.2.1951. The Petitioner did not produce his Admit Card at the time of joining his service and as such, his date of birth was recorded as 1.6.1948 at the time of preparation of the Service Book on the information furnished by the Petitioner. The Petitioner being literate while signing his Service Book, should be able to understand whether his date of birth was correctly recorded in his Service Book on which he signed by accepting the correctness of his date of birth and if, there be any mistake he should have taken steps to correct it as early as possible not at this belated stage, i.e. at the fag end of his service. The Respondents categorically stated that as per the standing order and also the relevant provision of FR 56, the change of date of birth can only be done within 5 (five) years from the date of his joining. The State Respondent also categorically stated in their affidavit-in-opposition that the inquiry and verification which was carried out by the authorities mentioned in the writ petition regarding the irregularities in recording the date of birth of the Petitioner as 1.6.1948 in the Service Book were carried out without the knowledge of P and AR Department, Government of Nagaland which is the nodal department for such matters. The State Respondents after knowing the irregularities and illegalities in correcting the date of birth of the Petitioner as 1.2.1951 under the said notification dated 26.8.2003 issued by Shri Senli Ao, Addl. Director of Fisheries, Government of Nagaland had issued the impugned notification dated 8.7.2004 for nullifying the correction of date of birth of the Petitioner as 1.2.1951 instead of 1.6.1948. 4. The period of 5 (five) years prescribed in Note-5 to FR 56(M) was incorporated only in the year, 1979. Under Note 5 to FR 56(M) provides for request to be made for correction of date of birth within five years from the date of entry into service. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Harnam Singh : (1993) 2 SCC 162 held that: If a Government servant, already in service for a long time, had applied for correction of date of birth before 1979, it would not be permissible to non-suit him on the ground that he had not applied for correction within five years of his entry into service, but the case of Government servant who applied for correction of date of birth only after 1979 stands on a different footing. It would be appropriate and in tune with harmonious construction of the provision to hold that in the case of those Government servants who were already in service before 1979, for a period of more than five years, and who intended to have their date of birth corrected after 1979, may seek the correction of date of birth within a reasonable time after 1979 but in any event not later than five years after the coming into force of the amendment in 1979. According to the said decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Harnam Singh (supra) the reasonable time for correction of date of birth for the Petitioner would be within five years from 1979 inasmuch as the Petitioner had already been in service before the coming into force of the amendment in 1979. But in the present case, there is no material to show that the Petitioner had applied for correction of date of birth within 1984. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Harnam Singh (supra) also held that; law of limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour in the matter of correction of date of birth. In Union of India v. Harnam Singh (supra) the correction of date of birth recorded in the Service Book was requested by filing an application at the fag end of the service of concerned employee on the basis of date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate. But the Apex Court held that this inaction for all the period of 35 years from the date of his joining service preclude him from saying that entry of his date of birth in Service Book are not correct. 5. The Apex Court had followed the ratio laid down in Union of India v. Harnam Singh (supra) in the State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan : (1994) 6 SCC 302 and held that: "inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth. The Government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute a regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. The portion of para 7 in State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan (supra) is quoted hereunder: .... ...This Court has, repeatedly, been holding that the inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth. The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. It is common phenomenon that just before superannuation, an application would be made to the Tribunal or court just to gain time to continue in service and the Tribunal or courts are unfortunately unduly liberal in entertaining and allowing the government employees or public employees to remain in office, which is adding an impetus to resort to the fabrication of the record and place reliance thereon and seek the authority to correct it. When rejected, on grounds of technicalities, question them and remain in office till the period claimed for, gets expired. This case is one such stark instance. Accordingly, in our view, the Tribunal has grossly erred in showing overindulgence in granting the reliefs even trenching beyond its powers of allowing him to remain in office for two years after his date of superannuation even as per his own case and given all conceivable directions beneficial to the employee. It is, therefore, a case of the grossest error of law committed by the tribunal which cannot be countenanced and cannot be sustained on any ground. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs quantified as Rs. 3000. 6. The Apex Court in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar and Anr. (1995) SCC 172 held that in the case of an employee who remained in service over decades with no objection to his date of birth recorded in his Service Book which was accepted at the time of entering into service cannot be corrected relying on the date of birth recorded in the Admit Card of the Matriculation Certificate Examination. Para 14 of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (supra) is quoted hereunder: 14. Even, on merits, both judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and the order of a Single Judge of the High Court, cannot be sustained. Para 14 of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (supra) is quoted hereunder: 14. Even, on merits, both judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and the order of a Single Judge of the High Court, cannot be sustained. For correction of Respondent 1's date of birth found in his "Service and Leave Record" with Appellant 1, the Calcutta University's copy of the duplicate Admit Card to Matric examination, which purported to show his date of birth as 7.7.1934, could not have been relied upon by the High Court for it was not a Matriculation certificate of Respondent I where his date of birth had been found for being acted upon as the correct date of birth, as had been held in a previous Division Bench decision of the High Court vide Pramatha Nath Choudhury v. State of W.B. The Apex Court in H.P. State Electricity Board v. K.R. Gulati : (1998) 2 SCC 624 held that even issuance of a direction at such a late stage to consider Respondents for promotion shall not be in the interest of justice. The ratio laid down to H.P. State Electricity Board (supra) is that it would not be in the interest of justice to interfere the decision of the employee in his service on the eve of attaining the age of superannuation. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gulaichi (Smt.) : (2003) 6 SCC 483 the concerned employee even obtained the decree of competent Civil Court declaring that her date of birth would be 31.7.1939. On the basis of the said judgment and decree, the concerned employee at the fag end of her service requested for correction of her date of birth recorded wrongly as 31.7.1929 in her Service Book as 31.7.1939. Even in that case, (State of U.P. v. Gulaichi (Smt.) (supra) the Apex Court after discussing the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of: 1) State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka : (1970) 3 SCC 624 , 2) Govt. of A.P. v. M. Hayagreev Sarma : (1990) 2 SCC 682 , 3) Executive Engineer v. Rangadhar Malik : 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 763, 4) Union of India v. Harnam Singh : (1993) 2 SCC 162 , 5) Secy. and Commr., Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran : 1994 Supp. of A.P. v. M. Hayagreev Sarma : (1990) 2 SCC 682 , 3) Executive Engineer v. Rangadhar Malik : 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 763, 4) Union of India v. Harnam Singh : (1993) 2 SCC 162 , 5) Secy. and Commr., Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran : 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 155, 6) State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopal : (1994) 6 SCC 302 and 7) State of Orissa v. Ramanath Patnaik : (1997) 5 SCC 181 held that the entry of date of birth in the Service Book was made with her knowledge and also put her signature in the Service Book accepting it and also the employee did not make any attempt to correct it, any amount of evidence produced subsequently by the employee for correcting the date of birth recorded in the Service Book is of no consequence. From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gulaichi (Smt.) (supra) it is clear that even if the employee, subsequently produce irrefutable prove relating to his date of birth as different from the earlier one, recorded in the Service Book, he cannot ask for correction of date of birth recorded in the Service Book if he continued to allow without any objection for a number of years and made application for correction with inordinate delay. 7. In the present case, this Court is of the firm view that there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner in approaching the concerned authority for correction of his date of birth recorded in his Service Book inasmuch as the action for correction of date of birth was started at the very fag end of the service of the Petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases mentioned above, this Court is of the considered view that interference by this Court to the impugned notification dated 8.7.2004 is not called for. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed