JUDGMENT : Challenge in this writ application is to the letter dated 31.08.2007 (Annexure-4), whereby the petitioner was communicated that he would superannuate from his service with effect from 29.02.2008. 2. Petitioner’s case in brief is that he entered in the services of the Respondents in the Department of Mining as Face Worker on 06.03.1973. At the time of his appointment, an Identity-card was issued to him by then Management of I.I.S.C.O. During his service tenure, he was granted promotions from time to time and on each occasion, he was required to submit the certificates in support of his educational qualifications for verification. 3. By letter dated 08.10.1998, issued by the concerned Department of the Respondents, he was informed that his date of birth as per entry in his service records was recorded as 27.02.1948 and if he had any objections and wanted the entry to be corrected, then he should produce the relevant documents for corrections, if any. 4. In response, he submitted his letter of protest, dated 28.10.1998, stating that his actual date of birth as per the relevant documents is 04.07.1952. He enclosed the matriculation Certificate/mark-sheet/cross-list in support of his claim. 5. After having submitted his objections, together with the requisite documents, he was all along expecting that the entry of his date of birth in his service records was duly corrected. 6. On the contrary, by the impugned letter he was informed that the date of his superannuation from service is 29.02.2008, as per the original entry of his date of birth in his service records. He submitted his representation on 20.12.2007, but his request was not acceded and hence this writ application. 7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the impugned letter is arbitrary and illegal in as much as that the Respondents have illegally refused to acknowledge the date of birth as recorded in the mark-sheet/cross-list, issued to him by the School authorities. It is explained that the petitioner had appeared at the matriculation examination in 1968, prior to the date of his entry in the service under the Respondent-Company and though he could not pass his matriculation examination in the year 1968 but the mark-sheet/cross-list, issued by the School from where he appeared in the Board Examination, did record the petitioner’s date of birth as 04.07.1952. Learned counsel argues that the Respondents could not have ignored and denied the genuineness of the date of birth as recorded in the cross list, since the same was issued on the basis of the entry made in the corresponding registers of the Board at the time when the petitioner’s name was registered, for appearing at the Board Examinations. Referring to the Full Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Kamta Pandey-versus-M/s.B.C.C.L. & Others 2007 (3) J.L.J.R. 726 (FB) and also in the case of Ramanand Tiwary-versus-I.I.S.C.O. Ltd., Chas & Others, 2007 (3) J.L.J.R. 68 (DB), learned counsel submits that in both these judgments, this Court had categorically held that the death of birth as declared in the Matriculation certificate shall have to be treated as authentic. 8. Per contra, the stand taken by the Respondents in their counter affidavit is that at the time of his entry in service, the petitioner was medically examined on 27.02.1973 and his age was assessed as 25 years and accordingly his date of birth was calculated and recorded in his service record as 27.02.1948. The petitioner, at that time, had voluntarily declared in the declaration form, duly signed by him, acknowledging his age as 25 years, corresponding to the age as assessed by the Medical Board. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted two separate declarations on 09.04.1987(Annexure-C), duly signed by him and signed by two witnesses, who were in the Company’s employment, but the column relating to the date of birth was left blank. It is further explained that subsequently on 28.10.1998, the petitioner applied to the Management for rectification of his date of birth as per his School Leaving Certificate. The petitioner did produce a cross-list of the High School Examination held in the year 1968 but in absence of authenticity of the document, it could not be accepted and the petitioner was informed accordingly. The further contention of the Respondents is that neither at the time of his entry in service nor at any time, thereafter did the petitioner produce either a Matriculation Certificate or any other equivalent certificate, issued by the Board/University to confirm that his date of birth was 04.07.1952 as claimed by him and in absence of any valid documentary proof, his claim for rectification of the date of birth could not possibly be accepted. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the Respondents would argue that the petitioner having accepted his age as assessed by the Medical Board at the time of his entry in service and having submitted his written declarations acknowledging the same, cannot, now be allowed to challenge the entry of his date of birth. In support of his submissions, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Seema Ghosh-versus-Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd, (2006) 7 SCC 722 . 10. The facts, as would emerge from the rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties, are that at the time of entry of his service under the Respondent-Company, the petitioner did not declare himself to be a matriculate. This was for the obvious reason that he had not passed his matriculation examination. He allowed himself to be examined by the Medical Board for assessment of his age and had accepted the age as assessed by the Board. He had filled-in Personal Data Form in his own hand-writing, wherein, he had categorically declared his age as 25 years on the date of his appointment, which corresponds to the age, assessed by the Medical Board. The petitioner thereafter continued to avail the benefits of his service, and even his promotions. Interestingly, it appears that although on each occasion of his promotion, he had submitted his declarations regarding his educational qualifications and his date of birth, but he had never mentioned specifically that he is a matriculate and had intentionally left blank the column in respect of his date of birth. Much later, in 1998, when the Respondent-Company had given its employees, the privilege of rectification of their respective date of birth in their service records on the basis of reliable documents, the petitioner had ventured to seek alteration of the entry of his date of birth in the service records on the basis of a purported cross list/mark-sheet claimed to have been issued by the School by way of results of the Matriculation examination, at which he had purportedly appeared in the year 1968. On perusal of the cross-list, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ application, it is apparent that it does not bear any certificate or seal either of the Board which conducted the examination or of any competent authority. On perusal of the cross-list, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ application, it is apparent that it does not bear any certificate or seal either of the Board which conducted the examination or of any competent authority. Such a document cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be subscribed as equivalent to a Matriculation certificate. The Respondents have rightly rejected the same as an unauthentic and unreliable document. 11. The Full Bench and the Division Bench judgments of this Court, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, cannot be of any assistance to him, since in both the judgments, the significance of the Matriculation certificate or equivalent certificate has been emphasized, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner has not produced any such certificate. On the other hand, the facts confirm that the petitioner had himself acknowledged his age as 25 years on the date of his appointment in service and such acknowledgement and acceptance has been declared by him in his own hand-writing in his Personal Date Form, which was submitted by him at the time of his appointment. 12. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.