ORDER 1. This writ petition has been preferred by Jharkhand State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "Board) against the judgment dated 25th August, 2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3261 of 2004. 2. By the said judgment, the learned single Judge while setting aside the order contained in letter dated 21st June, 2004 held that the respondent-writ petitioner, Dhibu Mahto, is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years i.e. upto October. 2009 on the basis of age (28 years) as recorded in his service book. 3. The facts, which have not been disputed by the parties and evident from the record, are as follows: The respondent, Dhibu Mahto, was appointed in the services of the then Bihar State Electricity Board on 18th October. 1977 as Unskilled Khalashl His age was recorded as 28 years i.e. 28 years when he joined the service on 18th October. 1977. As per Service Rules, he is to continue with the service of the Board till 60 years, the age of superannuation as prescribed. In the service book, on the basis of 28 years of age, his date of birth was to be recorded as 18th October, 1949 but it was entered as 27th December, 1949. After number of years of service, when it came to the notice that 28 years is the date of birth on 18th October, 1977 then the date of birth should have been 18th October, 1949 and not 27th December. 1949 as subsequently entered in the Service book. The age was doubted and he was referred to Medical Board for determination of his age in the year 1999 i.e. 22 years after his appointment. The Medical Board assessed his age and on that basis the date of birth was stated to have been changed in the Service book as 11th September, 1944. The petitioner was asked to superannuate on that basis w.e.f. 30th September, 2004 by order dated 21st, June, 2004. 4. Admittedly, the age of respondent, Dhibu Mahto, was recorded as 28 years at the time of his appointment i.e. on 18th October, 1977. On that basis, he is to continue in service till October, 2009. For 22 years, it was not interfered by the Board but was doubted because of two months variation. 4. Admittedly, the age of respondent, Dhibu Mahto, was recorded as 28 years at the time of his appointment i.e. on 18th October, 1977. On that basis, he is to continue in service till October, 2009. For 22 years, it was not interfered by the Board but was doubted because of two months variation. Having noticed the same, learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the respondent, Dhibu Mahto, is entitled to continue in the service till October, 2009. 5. We have heard the parties and noticed the aforesaid fact. We have also noticed that the age as was recorded in the service book, was changed after the year 1999 without notice to the respondent, Dhibu Mahto. There is nothing on the record that before entering a new date of birth i.e. 11th September, 1944, the respondent, Dhibu Mahto was noticed and after hearing him such date of birth was changed and entered. 6. In that view of the matter, after more than 22 years of service, it was not open to the Board to change the age of the respondent, Dhibu Mahto, nor it was open to them to alter the date of birth merely on the basis of a subsequent age determined by the Medical Board. 7. We find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed.