JUDGMENT: 1. IN this application under Article 226 of the constitution, the writ petitioner sought for a direction upon the respondent No. 5. to withdraw/cancel/rescind the impugned notice of retirement dated 24th september, 2003 and for not giving effect and/or further effect to the impugned notice dated 24th September, 2003. The petitioner also sought for an order of restraint upon the respondent authority by directing them not to interfere with the service of the petitioner. 2. THE facts of the present case may briefly be stated as follows: -The petitioner was working as a Senior Manager in Charge of Currency chest. He assumed such position on 7th July, 2003 after being transferred from the Recovery Branch. He was a Scale III Officer in the middle management of the respondent-Bank. He joined the said Bank in 1977 as a Field Officer in Scale I category. During his service career, he was transferred to different places. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager in Scale VI in 1986. In the year 1990, he was further promoted as Senior Manager in Scale III. At the time of joining, the petitioner submitted all necessary credentials including his birth certificate. He informed the Bank authorities that his correct date of birth is 26th of October, 1948, in stead of 1943, as inadvertently recorded in the matriculation certificate. After passing Matriculation Examination, he got scholarship for intermediate Study. This news was published in a local daily of Chittagang, now bangladesh, called "dainik Ittefaq". The original paper cutting along with an affidavit sworn by his father before the 1st Class Magistrate at Chittagang were submitted. His father collected the correct date of birth from the local "prosuti saddan" at Chittagang. The respondent authorities duly took note of his actual date of birth and subsequently recorded the same in the seniority list of officers, part I, Scale II to Scale VII as on 30th June, 1995 and seniority list of officers Part 1 Scale II to Scale VII as on 31st March, 1998. The seniority list published in the year 1992 also records the actual date of birth of the petitioner i. e., 26th October, 1948. Thus the date of retirement of the petitioner will be 25th of October, 2008 on his completion of 60 years. The seniority list published in the year 1992 also records the actual date of birth of the petitioner i. e., 26th October, 1948. Thus the date of retirement of the petitioner will be 25th of October, 2008 on his completion of 60 years. In the year 1993, the petitioner applied for House building Loan which was sanctioned by the respondent-authorities with a repayment schedule of Rs. 2,225/- to be paid by the petitioner in 192 equal monthly instalments. The number of E. M. Is was thus calculated on the basis of his proposed date of retirement i. e., 25th October, 2008. The repayment schedule of his Flood Loan was also made accordingly. To his utter shock and surprise, he received a letter dated 24th September, 2003 signed by respondent No. 5 thereby intimating him that he would retire on 31st October, 2003 on his attaining superannuation on 25. 10. 2003. Thus, the respondent-Bank sought to cut his service tenure short by five (5) years. The Service Regulation requires that three months clear notice is to be given. The respondent No. 5 did not have the authority to issue such a notice unless he was delegated with the power in that regard. The respondent-Bank authority also took away his chance of opting for pension scheme. The only child of the petitioner is handicapped and almost confined to bed. Such notice of premature retirement thereby put the petitioner into terrible distress. The petitioner accordingly approached this court for necessary redress. As against this, the respondent-Bank contested the case by filing affidavit-in-opposition denying, inter alia, the material allegations made in the writ application. It was claimed that the petitioner gave his date of birth in the application for appointment as on 26th October, 1943 and he declared that the statement made in the application are correct. He passed matriculation examination in 2nd Division in 1959 and there too, his date of birth was recorded as 26th October, 1943. He appeared in Intermediate Examination in Daca in 1961 and passed B. Sc. Examination in 1963. On 1st July, 1964, he joined Bijoygarh vidyapith, Calcutta as an Assistant Teacher. On 10th August, 1964, he got himself registered as a citizen of India recording his age as 20 years 9 months 9 days. In 1968, he appeared in M. Sc. Examination in Agricultural Botany. He joined the service of respondent-Bank on 27th February, 1977. 3. On 1st July, 1964, he joined Bijoygarh vidyapith, Calcutta as an Assistant Teacher. On 10th August, 1964, he got himself registered as a citizen of India recording his age as 20 years 9 months 9 days. In 1968, he appeared in M. Sc. Examination in Agricultural Botany. He joined the service of respondent-Bank on 27th February, 1977. 3. ON 23rd June, 1983, the respondent/bank issued Circular/guidelines in connection with date of birth thereby advising all functional/departmental heads that once the date of birth furnished by an employee at the time of appointment is accepted and entered in the service record, the same shall not be subject to any alteration. The respondent-Bank further claimed that the certificate as sought to have been relied upon indicating that date of birth of the petitioner as 26th October, 1948 was issued on 30th December, 1990. But the letterhead of such Prasuti Saddan would show that it was established in the year 1975. The affidavit sworn by the father of the petitioner on the basis of such alleged certificate issued by Prasuti Saddan thus cannot be relied upon. The petitioner applied for House Building Loan on 1st September, 1992 wherein he filled in the eligibility column himself and indicated therein that it appears from the HLS-I submitted by him, he had claimed his date of birth as 26th October, 1948. The interdepartmental correspondences thereby indicating his date of birth as in 1948 cannot lend support to the petitioner's claim. In response to the advocate's letter, the respondent-Bank released the entire terminal dues of the petitioner. Dismissal of the application was, thus, prayed for. 4. THE case, thus, relates to the controversy over the date of birth of the writ petitioner. Mr. Basu, appearing as learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, invited attention of the court to the copies of various documents annexed to the writ application in support of the claim that the respondent-Bank was not justified in issuing retirement notice on the basis of the initially recorded date of birth of the writ petitioner. He submitted that such initial recording was subsequently corrected and the authority concerned could not get the same altered and that too, without knowledge of the writ petitioner. Annexure P-1 shows that the writ petitioner approached the concerned respondent for recording the correct date of birth as 26th October, 1948 in the seniority list. He submitted that such initial recording was subsequently corrected and the authority concerned could not get the same altered and that too, without knowledge of the writ petitioner. Annexure P-1 shows that the writ petitioner approached the concerned respondent for recording the correct date of birth as 26th October, 1948 in the seniority list. This was as far back as on 3rd January, 1991. Mr. Basu sought to assail the impugned retirement notice dated 24th September, 2003 being Annexure P-2. Attention of the court was invited to the copies of the various other documents annexed to the affidavit-in-reply as well the supplementary affidavit. It is not in dispute that the petitioner himself gave his date of birth as 26th october, 1943 in the application for appointment to the Bank's service. He also indicated therein his age as 33 years 3 months on the date of filing of the said application i. e., on 20th January, 1977. It is further reflected that he joined bijoygarh Vidyapith, Calcutta, as an Assistant Teacher on 1st July, 1964. He declared that at that relevant point of time i. e., on the date of filing of the application for appointment, he had a child of 7 years. He gave the age of his wife as 25 years in the said application. 5. MR. Basu, as learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, sought to derive support and strength from the various interdepartmental correspondences and according to him, at the time of filling up of the application form, the petitioner, genuinely believed that he was born in 1943. It was claimed on behalf of the writ petitioner that the moment the writ petitioner came to know about his exact date of birth, he immediately approached the respondent-authority for necessary correction. Mr. Basu then submitted that once the authority corrected such wrongly recorded date of birth, there was no scope for altering the same and that too, without his knowledge and consent. 6. IN this context, Mr. Basu referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hari Singh vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2000) 10 SCC, 284. 6. IN this context, Mr. Basu referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hari Singh vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2000) 10 SCC, 284. In the factual backdrop of the said case, the Apex Court observed that since no notice was given to the employee concerned for accepting a date of birth other than the one entered in the service-book, the order of retirement, which was under challenge cannot be sustained. The aforesaid decision does not seem to lend much support to the petitioner's case since this case does not exactly relate to an order passed by the respondent-authority correcting thereby the date of birth of an employee as recorded in the service-book. Mr. De appearing as learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank at the very outset invited attention of the court to the guidelines relating to date of birth. Such Circular dated 23rd June, 1983 clearly mentions that once the date of birth furnished by an employee at the time of his appointment is accepted and entered in the service record by the appropriate authority the same shall not be subjected to any alteration. Mr. De referred to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of which are as hereunder: " 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 servants to approach the court or the tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their dates 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 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. " 7. WHILE submitting that a belated approach for correction of date of birth as recorded originally in the service-book does not deserve to be entertained, Mr. De sought to derive inspiration from the decision in the case of Union of India vs. Harnam Singh., reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162 . According to Mr. De, belated approach for correction of date of birth as recorded in the service-book without satisfactory explanation for the delay does not merit consideration. Relying upon the decision in the case of Coal India Ltd. and Anr. vs. Ardhendu Bikas bhattacharjee and ors., reported in (2005) 12 SCC 201, Mr. De submitted that controversy over the date of birth, as made in the present writ application, does not deserve to be resolved by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 8. THOUGH much was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner relating to the date of birth/age as mentioned in the relevant official papers and documents, Mr. De categorically mentioned that those documents could not inspire confidence of the court. He explained it by saying that it was the petitioner who himself filed an application for House Building Loan and Flood Loan and the concerned authorities processed the same accordingly. Mr. De then submitted that such documents or official records could not really change the complexion of the matter. Mr. De referred to the factual details of the case while submitting that the claim of the writ petitioner that he was born in 1948 and not in 1943, suffers from inherent absurdity. The fact that the writ petitioner was in prior employment for long 12 years was also referred by Mr. De. Mr. De referred to the factual details of the case while submitting that the claim of the writ petitioner that he was born in 1948 and not in 1943, suffers from inherent absurdity. The fact that the writ petitioner was in prior employment for long 12 years was also referred by Mr. De. He expressed his wonder while submitting that how could "prasuti Saddan" which was established in 1975 could issue a certificate to the effect that the writ petitioner was born in 1948. It was emphatically submitted by Mr. De on behalf of the respondent-Bank that such establishment "prasuti Saddan" did not have the competence to issue such a certificate. In course of submissions, Mr. De also referred to the principles of estoppel. It cannot be denied that the writ petitioner by not raising objection at the very initial stage after his joining service virtually accepted the age as recorded in the service-book and he cannot be permitted to take a different stand at a subsequent stage. 9. IN course of submission, reference was made to the decision in the case of purna Chand Ghorai vs. Pro-Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs and Finance, university of Calcutta and Ors., reported in 2002 (4) CHN 430 . The learned single Bench of this court in the said case observed that "one of the factors that entitles invoking writ jurisdiction is diligence". It follows from the aforesaid discussion that the claim as made by the present petitioner is based on materials, which fail to inspire confidence of the court. There are antagonistic contradictions as well. I do not find any rational justification for entertaining the grievances as made in the present application. Accordingly, the application being 10. W. P. No. 17094 (W) of 2003 fails and be dismissed. Consequently, the application being CAN 10487 of 2003 also stands disposed of. There is no order as to costs.