JUDGMENT AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.-The petitioner is claiming correction of his date of birth on the basis of a horoscope. 2. There is no provision under law so as to raise a conclusive foregone presumption in favour of the petitioner in respect of the date of birth as indicated in the horoscope. For this the petitioner will have to lead evidence in a suit to be filed before the Court of competent civil jurisdiction. The petitioner is educationally qualified and was working as a Collection Amin. He has passed his matriculation in 1969 where his date of birth recorded is 31.1.50. The date of birth as reflected in the horoscope is 31.12.52. 3. In a similar situation, the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Sharma 1 2003 (96) FLR 178 (SC), has rejected such a contention founded on a horoscope as against a matriculation certificate. 4. This writ petition therefore cannot be entertained. 5. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed.