Judgment : The petitioner has challenged the order of the respondent, dated 14. 2007, rejecting her request for alteration of Date of birth and consequently for a direction to the respondent to alter her date of birth as 111. 1954. 2. Facts leading to the write petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Part-time Sweeper in the respondent University, vide order of the respondent, dated 111. 1996 on daily wage basis. By order dated 30.10.1997, the respondent University decided to bring over the part-time sweeper, cum scavengers of the university to the regular establishment as “Safaiwala” on consolidated salary at Rs.1,650/- per month, with effect from 10. 1997. By order dated 22. 2001, the respondent has directed the petitioner to produce documentary evidence with regard to her age for the purpose of regularization. As the petitioner was illiterate, she could not produce any records and she brought this predicament to the notice of the respondent, who advised her to get an order from the Court of law for registration of the Date of Birth. Therefore, by letter dated 12. 2001, the petitioner sought for particulars furnished by her, during the appointment as “Safaiwala” from the respondent. On 212. 2001, the respondent also furnished the required particulars and thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 to register her birth before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (South) Court at Villianoor and the same was numbered as Cr. M.P. No. 163 of 2001. By order dated 17. 2002, the respondent brought the petitioner under regular time scale of pay with effect from 10. 1998. The respondent, by their letter dated 28. 2003, requested the petitioner to furnish the present status of the case filed by her in the Court regarding the Date of Birth and the same was also furnished to the respondent. After enquiry and on perusing all records, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (South) Villianoor, by order dated 30.11.2006, allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and ordered that, “the birth of Sengeniaamal (petitioner herein) born to her parents on 111. 1954 at Kothapurinatham, Mannadipet Commune, be registered in the birth register of Mannadipet Commune Panchayat, Thirubuvanai.” Accordingly, a certificate was also given to the petitioner, showing her Date of Birth as 111. 1954 by the Mannadipet Commune Panchayat. Thereafter, the petitioner, by letter, dated 12. 1954 at Kothapurinatham, Mannadipet Commune, be registered in the birth register of Mannadipet Commune Panchayat, Thirubuvanai.” Accordingly, a certificate was also given to the petitioner, showing her Date of Birth as 111. 1954 by the Mannadipet Commune Panchayat. Thereafter, the petitioner, by letter, dated 12. 2007, communicated the registration of her Date of Birth to the respondent. But, she was issued with a letter, dated 13. 2007, regarding the qualifying service put in by her for calculation of gratuity, as on 13. 2007. Again, by enclosing her Birth Certificate the petitioner represented to the respondent, stating that she was born only on 111. 1954 and was due to retire only on 111. 2014, enclosing her birth certificate. Without considering the case of the petitioner, the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 14. 2007, rejecting her request for alteration of date of birth on the ground that as per the rules, the request for alteration of Dated of Birth should be made within a year or two, before the date of superannuation, Challenging the above said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The Registrar of Pondicherry University in his counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Part-time Sweeper, on daily rated basis, in the year 1987 and thereafter, she was bought into regular establishment as “Safaiwala” on 10. 1997, on consolidated pay. For the purpose of regularization of her services and for registration of the details in the services and for registration of the details in the service register, on 17. 2000, the petitioner was called upon to produce her birth certificate for age proof with other relevant records. Since the petitioner had failed to produce the same, the respondent University had onceagain sent a reminder, dated 22. 2001, to the petitioner, directing her to produce the same. .4. The respondent has further submitted that on 13. 2001, the petitioner has sent a letter to the University, stating that she had filed a case before the Court of law to obtain a decree with regard to her date of birth. However, by letter dated 4. 2002, she requested the respondent-University to refer her case to the Medical Board like other employees of the respondent university. On her request, the respondent-university referred her case to the Medical Board of Government General Hospital, Pondicherry to ascertain her age. However, by letter dated 4. 2002, she requested the respondent-University to refer her case to the Medical Board like other employees of the respondent university. On her request, the respondent-university referred her case to the Medical Board of Government General Hospital, Pondicherry to ascertain her age. On physical examination the petitioner, a certificate was issued by the Medical Board, certifying her age as 55 years as on 26. 2002, and the same was communicated to the University on 7. 2002 by the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Pondicherry. The certificate issued by the Medical Board of Government of Pondicherry was accepted by the petitioner and based on which, the respondent-University, by an order dated 17. 2002, regularized the services of the petitioner, with effect from 10. 1998 in a consolidated salary of Rs.1,650/-. The petitioner’s age and other particulars were entered in the Service Book and the petitioner while acknowledging the same affixed her signature, without any protest. 5. The respondent has further submitted that on 23. 2004, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent-University, stating that she has filed a case in Cr. M.P. No. 163 of 2001 with regard to her age and requested the University not to take any further action till orders are obtained in the above case. On 19. 2004, the respondent, by a written communication, informed the petitioner that her request cannot be entertained, because, it was only on her request and consent, she was referred to the Medical Board for obtaining a certificate pertaining to her age and based on which, her services were also regularized. 6. It is further submitted that for more than two years, the petitioner was silent and only on 12. 2007, the petitioner made a representation, along with a copy of the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 30.11.2006 and the birth certificate issued by the Mannadipet Commune Panchayat, stating that her date of birth as “111. 1954.” The respondent-University issued a Memorandum, dated 14. 2007, stating that the petitioner’s request for change of date of birth as 111. 1954, instead of 26. 1947, cannot be accepted. In these circumstances, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. .7. Assailing the orders of the respondent-University. Mrs. 1954.” The respondent-University issued a Memorandum, dated 14. 2007, stating that the petitioner’s request for change of date of birth as 111. 1954, instead of 26. 1947, cannot be accepted. In these circumstances, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. .7. Assailing the orders of the respondent-University. Mrs. Sudha Ramalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has filed to consider the statutory provisions of the Central Government Service Rules regarding the alteration of Date of Birth. She further submitted that the respondent-University ought to have considered the fact that determination of date of birth, by way of medical examination, can only be a secondary proof and it cannot be held as conclusive. When the date of birth is supported by birth certificate, a primary proof, the respondent ought to have altered the date of birth in the service register, especially when the request is made, within five years from the date of entry into service. She submitted that the rejection is arbitrary and hence, prayed that the impugned order to be set aside. 8. Referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, Mrs. A.V. Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University submitted that the respondent-University did not advise the petitioner to get any order from the Court of law for registration of her date of birth. But the respondent only directed the petitioner to produce age proof to regularize her services. She further submitted that when the petitioner was not able to produce any document, she voluntarily came forward for medical examination to ascertain her age and she was also aware of the results of the medical examination. According to the learned counsel, having participated in the Medical Board for the purpose of ascertaining her age and obtained a certificate to that effect and having made a declaration and signed in the Service Register, it is not open to the petitioner to seek for alternation of date of birth at the fag end of her service. She further submitted that if the petitioner was realty aggrieved by the certificate issued by the Medical Board, she ought to have challenged the same, then and there. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as per the entry in the service Registrar, which is based on the certificate issued by the Board on physical examination, the Date of Birth of the petitioner is 26. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as per the entry in the service Registrar, which is based on the certificate issued by the Board on physical examination, the Date of Birth of the petitioner is 26. 1947 and that on completion of 60 years of age, she was due to retire on 30.6.2007. The application, dated 14. 2007, submitted by the petitioner just two months before the date of superannuation, cannot be entertained and therefore, the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner is in accordance with law. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record. 11. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions relating to alteration of Date of Birth. Chapter 58 of the Central Government Service Rules, deals with declaration of Date of Birth and its alteration. The said chapter reads as follows: “Declaration of date of birth: Every person newly appointed to a service or a post under Government shall, at the time of the appointment, declare the date of birth by the Christian era with as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence such as a Matriculation Certificate, Municipal Birth Certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known, an approximate date shall be determined in the following manner: .(a) If he is unable to state his exact date of birth can state the year or year and month of birth, the 1st July or the 16 of the month, respectively, shall be treated as the date of his birth. .(b) If he is only able to state his approximate age, his date of birth shall be assumed to be the corresponding date after deducting the number of years representing his age from his date of appointment. .(c) When a person who first entered Military employ is subsequently employed in a Civil Department, the date of his birth for the purpose of the Civil employment shall be the date stated by him at the time of attestation, or if at the time attestation he stated only his age, the date of birth shall be deducted with reference to that stage according to (b) above. Entry of date of birth in service records: The actual date or the assumed date determined in the manner stated above shall be recorded in the Service Book or any other record that may be kept in respect of the Government servant’s service under Government and, once recorded. (Rules 79 and 80, General Financial Rules.) Alteration of date of birth:- The following criteria may usefully be applied in considering requests for alteration of dates of birth already recorded in Service Books. etc., which may be received by the Ministeries, etc:- Normally, the requests for alteration of date of birth made within a year or two of the date of superannuation are not countenanced. Where, however, such requests are not regarded as time-barred, then should by supported be satisfactory documentary evidence (such as the matriculation or equivalent certificate or a duly attested extract of the Birth Register or Baptismal certificate in originate together with a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances in which the wrong date came to be entered and statement of any previous attempts made to have the record amended. It should also be examined whether the Government servant concerned would have been within the age limits prescribed for Government service at the time he entered service with reference to the different date later claimed by him as the correct date. If he would not have been so eligible, it should be examined whether the date actually accepted then was given by him bona fide and did not given him some advantage in securing admission into service at that time, and the change proposed late on is for bona fide reasons and not merely to gain some fresh advantage. So far as the officers belonging to the Central Secretariat Service are concerned, the Ministry of Home Affairs should be regarded as the Administrative Ministry for this purpose, and all requests for alteration in the date of birth from such officers should be referred to this Ministry (G.I., M.H.A., O.M. No.55/3/54-Ests, dated the 6. 1954.) It has been decided that requests from Government servants for alteration of the date of birth should not be entertained after the preparation of their Service Books and in any event not later than the completion of the probation period or declaration or quasi-permanency whichever is earlier. 1954.) It has been decided that requests from Government servants for alteration of the date of birth should not be entertained after the preparation of their Service Books and in any event not later than the completion of the probation period or declaration or quasi-permanency whichever is earlier. The date of birth of a Government servant may, however, be altered at a late stage by a Department of the Central Government and Administrator or a Head of Department, if he is satisfied that a bona fide clerical mistake has been committed and that it should be rectified. Efforts should, however, be made to settle the matter within the period stated above. (G.I., M.H.A., O.M. No.F.9/1/61-Ests. (A), dated the 111. 1962. The date on which a Government servant attains the age of fifty-eight years or sixty years, as the case may be, shall be determined with reference to the date of birth declared by the Government servant at the time of appointment and accepted by the appropriate authority on production, as far as possible, of confirmatory documentary evidence such as High School or Higher Secondary or Secondary School Certificate or extracts from Birth Register. The date of birth so declared by the Government servant and accepted by the appropriate authority shall not be subject to and alteration except as specified in this note. An alteration of date of birth of a Government servant can be made, with the sanction of a Ministry or Department of the Central Government, or the Comptroller and Auditor-General in regard to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, or an Administrator of a Union Territory under which the Government servant is serving, if- .(a) a request in this regard is made within five years of his entry into Government service; .(b) it is clearly established that a genuine bona fide mistake had occurred; and .(c) the date of birth so altered would not make him ineligible to appear in any School or University or Union Public Service Commission examination in which he had appeared, or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered Government Service.” 12. The issue as to whether the applications for alteration of Date of Birth submitted at the fag end of the service can be entertained or not, has been considered by the Courts and it is no more res integra. It is worthwhile to extract few decisions on this aspect. .13. In G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. V. Shib Kumar Dushad AIR 2001 SC 72 : (2000) 8 SCC 696 : 2001-I-LLJ-532, the Supreme Court considered the scope of judicial review in matter relating to alteration of Date of Birth. After analyzing various decisions on this point, the Supreme Court held that where question regarding correctness of date of birth as entered in service record raised by employee long after his joining the service and employer decided the question following the procedure prescribed by statute, statutory rules or instructions, then in the absence of any arithmetical or typographical error apparent on the face of the record, High Court should not interfere with such decision of the employer in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .14. In a recent decision in State of Gujarat and Others v. Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi in (2007) 1 LW 121, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 10, held as follows: .“As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided 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 which 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 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 atleast 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. 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 atleast 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.” 15. In the case on hand, the petitioner, who was appointed as Part-Time Sweeper/Scavenger, was brought into regular establishment and appointed as “Safaiwala” on consolidated salary of Rs.1,650/- per month, with effect from 10. 1997, subject to the ratification of the executive council for eventual appointment in the prescribed scale of pay of the post after completion of one year of satisfactory service, on consolidated salary. She was directed to produce documentary evidence, such as, birth extract or Court decree for proof of age for further action. In response to the same, the petitioner, by letter, dated 110. 2001, has informed the Deputy Registrar (Admn.), Pondicherry University that she has filed a case in the Court for registration of Date of Birth and sought permission to produce the judgment, as soon as it was delivered. .16. Perusal of the letter, dated 4. 2002 of the petitioner, addressed to the Registrar, Pondicherry University shows that the petitioner had volunteered herself for medical examination before the Board for the purpose of determining her Date of Birth, as was done in two other cases, whose services were regularized. In response to her request, the Assistant Registrar (Administration), has addressed a letter dated 24. 2002 to Medical Superintended, General Hospital, Government of Pondicherry for arrangement of medical examination to ascertain the age of the petitioner and intimate a convenient date and time, so as to enable the University to direct the petitioner for appearance. Thereafter, the Board, comprising of three members, viz., (1) the Chairman, Director, Health and Family Welfare Services, Pondicherry, (2) Medical Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Pondicherry and (3) The Assistant Director, Government General Hospital, Pondicherry medically examined the petitioner on 26. 2002 and opined that the petitioner would be around 55 years of age on the date of examination. 17. Thereafter, the Board, comprising of three members, viz., (1) the Chairman, Director, Health and Family Welfare Services, Pondicherry, (2) Medical Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Pondicherry and (3) The Assistant Director, Government General Hospital, Pondicherry medically examined the petitioner on 26. 2002 and opined that the petitioner would be around 55 years of age on the date of examination. 17. Accepting the opinion of the experts, viz., Medical Board, a resolution was passed by the Executive Committee in the Office Order No.55, regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from 10. 1998, subject to the ratification of the Executive Council of the University. A service register was opened and the Date of Birth of the petitioner was also entered as 211. 1947. She has accepted the Medical Board’s opinion and affixed her signature in the Service Register. Thereafter, on 23. 2004, the petitioner has written a letter to the Registrar, Pondicherry University not to take any decision, with regard to her age, till the disposal of the criminal case in Cr. M.P. No. 163 of 2001, filed for registration of the Date of Birth in the Municipal Records, The said request of the petitioner has been rejected on 14. 2004, on the ground that her services were regularized only on the basis of the medical report. It is after this rejection just two months before attaining the age of superannuation as per the service records, she has produced the birth extract issued by the Panchayat. 18. Yet another aspect to be considered is, whether if the Date of Birth of a government servant, determined on the basis of an opinion offered by a Medical Board and acted upon by the employer, can be raked up at a later point of time. .19. In Jiwan Kishore v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1981-I-LLJ-271, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider a case, where there was a discrepancy in the records relating to the Date of Birth. The employer referred the matter to the Medical Board. The Supreme Court, while answering the said question, held that there was no reason to ignore the scientific fixation of age, when the records are flagrantly conflicting. 20. In G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shib Kumar Dushad and Others (supra), an employee gave the year of birth as 1932 and the same was recorded in Form ‘B’ Register, maintained under Mines Act. 20. In G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shib Kumar Dushad and Others (supra), an employee gave the year of birth as 1932 and the same was recorded in Form ‘B’ Register, maintained under Mines Act. Thereafter, he was transferred to the services of Corporation, consequent upon nationalization of Coal Mines. He raised a claim after 20 years that his date of birth as 2. 1946, based on the Certificate of Gas Testing and Mining Shirdarship. He was referred to the Medical Board, as per procedure for determination the Date of Birth, followed by the Corporation. The Medical Board determined his age as 52 years in 1986 and the same was accepted by the Corporation. On the basis of the report of the Medical Board, the Date of Birth of the said employee was taken as 110. 1936 and consequently, the date of his superannuation as 10. 1996. After three years, the employee filed a writ petition, seeking for a direction to the Corporation to enter his date of birth as 2. 1946, based on the certificate of Mining Sirdarship and Overmanship granted by the Director General of Mines Safety. The High Court granted a direction to consider the representation of the employee for correction of Date of Birth, but the same was rejected by the Corporation, stating that there was no ground to reopen the question of date of birth. Therefore, the employee was constrained to file another writ petition, seeking for a writ/order for cancellation and withdrawal of the order, dated 21/25. 1994 and to correct his date of birth, as 2. 1946. A learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, directed the Corporation to correct the Date of Birth and also ordered that the employee was to superannuate from service in the year 2006, On appeal, the Division Bench modified the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the employee was to superannuate in the year 2004, instead of 2006. While testing the correctness of the order of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 15 held as follows: “15. The date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee but for the employer also. On the length of Service put in by the employee depends the quantum of retrial benefits he would be entitled to. The date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee but for the employer also. On the length of Service put in by the employee depends the quantum of retrial benefits he would be entitled to. Therefore, while determining the dispute in such matters Courts should bear in mind that a change of the date of birth long after joining service, particularly when the employee is due to retire shortly which will upset the date recorded in the service records maintained in the due course of administration should not generally be accepted. In such a case the burden is heavy on the employee who comes to the Court with the case that the date of birth in the service record maintained by the employer is untrue and incorrect. The burden can be discharged only by producing acceptable evidence of a clinching nature. We are constrained to make this observation as we find that in a large number of cases employees who are on the verge of retirement raise a dispute regarding the correctness of the date of birth entered in the service record and the Courts are inclined to pass an interim order for continuance of such employee beyond the date of superannuation on the basis of the entry of date of birth in the service record.” 21. As regards determination of age by the Medical Board, the Supreme Court in the above reported case, observed that the Medical Board has laid down certain instructions to consider the matter on the evidence available with the colliery management and in accordance with the requirement of medical jurisprudence. The Medical Board determined the age of the employee, to be 52 years in 1988 and the employer (Corporation) accepted such a determination. There was hardly any scope for the High Court to interfere with the date of birth as determined by the employer and issue a writ of mandamus that the date as claimed by the employer should be accepted. 22. In the case on hand, the determination of age by medical examination was on the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, Medical Examination was conducted by the Board and based on the certificate issued by the Medical Board, the department of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Pondicherry, has regularized the service of the petitioner with effect from 10. 1998. 23. Accordingly, Medical Examination was conducted by the Board and based on the certificate issued by the Medical Board, the department of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Pondicherry, has regularized the service of the petitioner with effect from 10. 1998. 23. In Seema Ghosh v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. in 2006-III-LLJ-759, the Supreme Court considered a case where there was a dispute between the widow of the employee and the Management, regarding the Date of Birth of the deceased employee. In the above reported case, according to the widow, the workman was born on 18. 1929, which was duly recorded in the Admission Registrar of Naba Kumar High English School, Dacca, where he was a student from 21. 1935 to 16. 1942. At the time of joining service, the workman informed the concerned department of the Management that his date of birth as 18. 1929. But inadvertently the same was recorded as 11. 1923, which he came to know along after. Subsequently, after joining the service, the concerned authority of the department, obtained the signature of the workman on a printed preformed of service card, which did not contain the details with regard to the Date of Birth. When the dispute as regards the Date of Birth entered in the records was raised, the Chief Personnel Manager of the Management directed the workman to produce his School Leaving Certificate. The School Leaving Certificate produced by the workman was stated to be not genuine and therefore, the request of the workman for rectification of wrong entry of Date of Birth was not considered. Thereafter, upon fresh request made by the workman, the Headmaster of the very same school has issued another certificate duly attested and endorsed by the Ministry of Education. In view of the subsequent development, once again, the employee requested the Management to rectify the error in the service register. But the Management reused to rectify the same. In the mean time, the workman attained the age of superannuation and in this regard, as Industrial Dispute was raised. The Management decided to refer the case of the workman to the Medical Board and accordingly, he was sent to the Medical Board to ascertain his age. But the Management reused to rectify the same. In the mean time, the workman attained the age of superannuation and in this regard, as Industrial Dispute was raised. The Management decided to refer the case of the workman to the Medical Board and accordingly, he was sent to the Medical Board to ascertain his age. On the basis of the opinion given by the Board, the Date of birth was accordingly rectified and the same was also accepted by the workman and consequently, he was superannuated as per the Date of birth given by the Medical Board. It was the contention of the Management that after superannuation, the workman had illegally raised the Industrial dispute as regards date of birth. While dealing with the discrepancy with reference to the school certificate and the opinion of the Medical Board, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 27, held as follows: “Once the workman himself has accepted the opinion in the finding of the Medical Board and continued to work till 19. 1986 and one year of extension thereafter there was no necessity for the Company to examine the Medical Officer and/or produce the report of the Medical Officer Board.” 24. At Paragraphs 29 and 31, the Supreme Court has further observed as follows: “29. ……. It is only because of the uncertainty, about the date of birth of the workman, the Company constituted a special Medical Board in 1984 to determine the age and hence the date of birth of the workman. 31…. We have elaborately dealt with the events which led to the constitution of the Medical Board for determining the age of the workman. The workman did not challenge the opinion of the Medical Board constituted by the Management for determining the age of the workman and permitted the workman to work till his attaining the age of retirement. Therefore, the workman in the present case is stopped from challenging the correctness of the opinion of the Medical Board after his retirement. ………….. The Workman was to superannuate in the year 1986 but on the basis of the assessment of age made by the Apex Medical Board, he was allowed to continue till 19. 1987. At that stage, the workman did not challenge the decision of the Medical Board. ………….. The Workman was to superannuate in the year 1986 but on the basis of the assessment of age made by the Apex Medical Board, he was allowed to continue till 19. 1987. At that stage, the workman did not challenge the decision of the Medical Board. It is only after enjoying the benefits given to the workman and after availing the benefits, the workman raised a dispute after his retirement in pursuance of which the Labour Court has passed the Award.” 25. It could be seen from the pleadings that in the case of employees without authentic proof of age, the respondent as a procedure had taken a decision to refer them for medical examination for ascertaining the age. The said procedure cannot be found fault with. The Medical Board comprises of experts and therefore, no fault can be found in the action taken by the respondent-University in referring the petitioner to the Medical Board for its opinion. 26. In the instant case, the petitioner has agreed with the Medical Board opinion, as regards determination of the Date of Birth and was also regularized in the respondent-University. As held in Seema Ghosh v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. (supra), the petitioner has not challenged the opinion of the Medical Board, while her age was determined. Once the employer as per the procedure or instructions followed in the department has taken a decision to refer an employee for medical examination for determining the age and that too on the request of the employee, the employee having accepted the opinion of the Medical Board comprising of exports, at one stage for gaining the benefit of regularization of her services and allowed the medical opinion to become final, cannot be permitted to turn around and claim alteration of date of birth long after her service and just few months before the age of superannuation. The employee has to approach the competent authorities within a reasonable time, as provided in the service rules for alteration of date of birth and when the medical opinion remains unchallenged, the employee is estopped from challenging the decision of the employer. 27. There is no controversy regarding the constitution of the Medical Board, as they are experts in the filed. 27. There is no controversy regarding the constitution of the Medical Board, as they are experts in the filed. A detailed procedure has been laid down for determination of Date of Birth and having accepted the same, it is not open to the petitioner to seek for interference, at the fag end of her service. 28. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the order of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for alteration of Date of Birth as a matter of right. 29. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.