JUDGMENT A.S. NAIDU, J. — The order dated 23rd October, 2009 passed by the Deputy Secretary (P & IR), Paradip Port Trust vide Annexure-4 rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner and declining to change/correct his date of birth recorded in the service book, is assailed in this Writ Petition. The petitioner joined in Paradip Port Trust service on 7th September, 1972. In the service book the date of birth of the petitioner was men¬tioned as 28th February 1947. The said entry was made in accord¬ance with the H.S.C. Certificate granted by the Board of Second¬ary Education, Orissa. According to the petitioner on coming to know that his date of birth has been wrongly entered and his cor¬rect date of birth was 8th April 1951, he filed a representation before the Paradip Port authority for correction of the same. Instead of taking any action, it is alleged, steps were taken to superannuate him as per the date of birth recorded in the service book. Being aggrieved the petitioner had approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No.2839/2005. The said Writ Petition was dis¬posed of on 6th September 2005 and the following order was passed: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner in this Writ application challenges the order of superannuation (Annexure-7) passed by the opposite party No. 3 on the ground that by relying on wrong date of birth, the petitioner has been superannuated. According to the learned counsel for the petition¬er, Annexure-4, which is the age certificate issued to petitioner on 27.12.2004, indicated that his date of birth is 8th April, 1951 whereas High School Certificate Examination (Annexure-1) issued by Board of Secondary Education Orissa indicates that his date of birth is 20th February, 1947. We have no reason to inter¬fere with the decision of the opposite party No.3 which has been done relying on the matriculation certificate issued by the Board on 8th April, 1947 indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as 20.2.1947. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.” 3. The petitioner, however, went on submitting representa¬tions before the authorities thereafter. He was superannuated w.e.f. 28th February 2005 on attaining the age of 58. The repre¬sentation filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the impugned order dtd. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.” 3. The petitioner, however, went on submitting representa¬tions before the authorities thereafter. He was superannuated w.e.f. 28th February 2005 on attaining the age of 58. The repre¬sentation filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the impugned order dtd. 23rd October, 2009 with the following observation; “As per the Government guideline the request of an employee for change of date of birth can only be considered within five years from the date of entry in the Government service subject to production of authenticated documents. Hence at this belated stage, change of date of birth is beyond the scope of considera¬tion.” 4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, force¬fully submits that the Paradip Port Trust authority acted ille¬gally and with material irregularity in rejecting the applica¬tions filed by him for correction of his date of birth recorded in the service book. It is stated that in fact the date entered in his HSC certificate granted by the Board on 8th April, 1974 was wrong and he had applied in accordance with the Rules to the Board authorities for correction of the same. After considering the said application the mistake was corrected and another “age certificate” was granted on 27th December 2004 (Annexure-2). It is submitted that the Port authorities should have accepted Annexure-2 and corrected his death of birth entered in the serv¬ice book and should have permitted the petitioner to continue in service. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, two questions arise for consideration; (1) as to whether the reasons assigned in Annexure-1 that the belated application filed by the petition¬er should not be considered, is justified or not and (2) whether the plea taken by the petitioner that his date of birth was corrected vide Annexure-2 after due enquiry should have been accepted. 6. So far as the second contention is concerned, this Court finds that the age certificate dated 27th December, 2004 (Annexure-2) itself cannot be accepted as the Section Officer and Senior Assistant has not put any signatures and it appears that the same was an incomplete one and was not properly issued. 6. So far as the second contention is concerned, this Court finds that the age certificate dated 27th December, 2004 (Annexure-2) itself cannot be accepted as the Section Officer and Senior Assistant has not put any signatures and it appears that the same was an incomplete one and was not properly issued. Even otherwise neither there is any pleadings nor there is any materi¬al to show that the petitioner had applied to the Board for correction of his date of birth in accordance with the Rules and that the Board authorities after conducting any enquiry corrected the date of birth. 7. It is settled position of law that a party has to spe¬cifically plead the case and produce or adduce or annex suffi¬cient materials or documents to substantiate his submissions made in the petition. In the event the pleadings are not com¬plete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the plea (See Bharat Singh & Ors. V. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181 ) 8. It is settled position of law that when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law, is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the Writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the Writ Petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court should not entertain the point advanced. There is no distinction between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and Writ Petition. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded, in a Writ Petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts, but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and an¬nexed to it. 9. Perusal of the averments made, in the case at hand, clearly reveals that the petitioner has neither pleaded nor an¬nexed any material/document to reveal that in fact the Board had conducted an enquiry and on being satisfied that there was a mistake in the recording of the age, rectified the same. 9. Perusal of the averments made, in the case at hand, clearly reveals that the petitioner has neither pleaded nor an¬nexed any material/document to reveal that in fact the Board had conducted an enquiry and on being satisfied that there was a mistake in the recording of the age, rectified the same. Even otherwise Annexure-2 does not appear to be a complete document as the signature of the Section Officer concern is lacking. 10. Now coming to the first point, fact remains, the peti¬tioner had approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No.2839/2005 alleging that in spite of correction of his date of birth by the Board of Secondary Education, the Port authorities are taking steps to superannuate him relying upon the date of birth recorded in his service records, this Court was not inclined to accept the said plea and disposed of the Writ Petition. Thus, the petitioner is estopped from raising the said point once again. It appears that the petitioner was superannuated from service w.e.f. 28th February, 2005. Thereafter he had filed a representation, on the basis of Annexure-2. If the petitioner was aware of the fact that his date of birth had been wrongly entered in the service book, it was incumbent upon him to file a petition for rectifying the same within five years from the date of entry in the Service. The petitioner admittedly entered into service in the year 1972. The application filed for correction was thus grossly barred by time and we feel that the authorities have not committed any illegali¬ty or irregularity in rejecting the representation. 11. After considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the discussions made above, we are not inclined to inter¬fere with the decision taken by the authorities. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.