1. The petitioner claims that her date of birth has been shown as 04.03.1947 instead of 04.03.1957 by the respondents as a result of which she has been retired on 31.03.2005. 2. In order to understand the controversy involved in the writ petition, follow­ing facts may be noticed. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant (Copyist) on compassion­ate grounds in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar with a rider that she was required to pass her matriculation examination. At the time of her entry into service as Junior Assistant in the year 1981, her date of birth was recorded in the service book as 04.03.1957 based upon the School Leaving Certificate dated 19.12.1979 issued by the Govt. Higher Secondary School (Girls), Kothi Bagh, Srinagar. She could not qualify her Matriculation Examination within the period prescribed in the appointment order, therefore, she came to be terminated vide Order no.574 dated 20.10.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be appointed as Peon vide Order no.864 dated 23.01.1985 and was posted in the Court of Munsiff, Chadoora. At the time of her entry into service, another service book was prepared by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chadoora, wherein her date of birth has been recorded as 04.03.1957 which is alleged to have been tampered by the office of respondent no.5 as 04.03.1947 instead of 04.03.1957. 4. After noticing the date of birth as recorded herein supra, a representation was filed by the petitioner to the Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court of J&K. It is contended in the representation that after 1990, she had to migrate from Valley due to unfavorable situation and joined in the office of respondent no.4 but respondent no.5 did not forward her service record to Principal District Judge, Jammu upto 2004. It is only after receipt of service record, she came to know about the change of date of birth as 04.03.1947 instead of 04.03.1957. The representation of the petitioner came to be rejected vide order dated 02.03.2005. It is this order, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that after appointment as Copyist in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar, service book was prepared by the respondents showing her date of birth as 04.03.1957 based upon the School Leaving Certificate. It is this order, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that after appointment as Copyist in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar, service book was prepared by the respondents showing her date of birth as 04.03.1957 based upon the School Leaving Certificate. On her failure to qualify the Matriculation Examination, her services as Junior Assistant came to be terminated and she was re-appointed as Class-IV employee on 23.11.1985. At the time of her appointment as Peon, another service book was prepared by respondent no.5 in which her date of birth came to be recorded as 04.03.1957. Tampering in the date of birth has taken place only after the petitioner migrated to Jammu in the year 1990 by the office of respondent no.5. This knowledge was acquired by the petitioner only in the year 2004 when her service book was sent by respondent no.5 to respondent no.4. She immediately after coming to know about this fact, filed a representation before respondent no.2. It is further contended that date of birth recorded at the time of first appointment was based upon the school leaving certificate which clearly reflects it as 04.03.1957. She also placed reliance on a certificate dated 17.06.2009 issued by the Joint Secretary (Verification), J&K State Board of School Education, Srinagar in which date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 04.03.1957. 6. On the other hand, the stand of respondent no.1 is that date of birth of the petitioner recorded at the time of initial appointment as Copyist was 04.03.1957 based upon the school leaving certificate issued by the Govt. Higher Secondary School (Girls), Kothi Bagh, Srinagar. At the time of her entry into service as Class-IV in the year 1985, her date of birth in the service book prepared by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chadoora is shown as 04.03.1947 instead of 04.03.1957. Both the Service books of the petitioner have been examined. In the first service book, date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 04.03.1957 whereas in the 2nd service book, her date of birth is shown as 04.03.1947. It is also admitted that the petitioner had to migrate at Jammu in 1990 and attached with the office of respondent no.4. It is also admitted that the date of birth of the petitioner remained under the custody of respondent no.5. It is also admitted that the petitioner had to migrate at Jammu in 1990 and attached with the office of respondent no.4. It is also admitted that the date of birth of the petitioner remained under the custody of respondent no.5. It is further stated that the particulars of date of birth of the petitioner was got verified from the Joint Secretary (Verification), J&K State Board of School Education, who informed that the date of birth of the petitioner as per record maintained with the BOSE is 04.03.1957. It further reveals from the reply filed by respondent no.1 that even though there seems to have been tampering by overwriting in the date of birth but certainly it does not appear that the year of birth has been changed from 1957 to 1947 as there is no significant change in the digits 4 and 7 in the figure "1947". It is further contended that Rule 6.4 of Financial Code, provides that the date of birth declared and accepted by the Government servant and recorded by the Head of the Off ice/Drawing and Disbursing Officer in the Service Book is not to be subject to any alteration/change except in case of a clerical error, without the orders of the Government. The Government can make an alter­ation in date of birth of a Government servant only if a request in this regard is made by the Government servant within a period of five years of his/her entry into Government service and it is clearly established that a genuine and bonafide mistake has occurred. The petitioner has sought correction of date of birth in the year 2004, which is beyond the period of five years as prescribed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. What is being disputed is whether date of birth recorded on her first service book is correct or one recorded in second service book. 9. In order to resolve this controversy, certain facts are required to be observed. 10. In the first service book, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 04.03.1957 based upon the school leaving certificate issued by the Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School (Girls), Kothi Bagh, Srinagar dated 19.12.1979. 9. In order to resolve this controversy, certain facts are required to be observed. 10. In the first service book, the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 04.03.1957 based upon the school leaving certificate issued by the Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School (Girls), Kothi Bagh, Srinagar dated 19.12.1979. In support of this petitioner relies on the certificate issued by the Joint Secretary, Certificate J&K State Board of School Education, Srinagar which confirmed the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.03.1957. This certificate has been procured by the respondents in order to verify the date of birth of the petitioner. The Board has issued, the certificate after the petitioner was admitted to appear in English paper only in 1983. It is at that point of time, date of birth of the petitioner was recorded by the BOSE. The respondents 1 and 2 could not produce any certificate showing date of birth of the petitioner as 04.03.1947 which clearly indicates that no such certificate was in existence. I say so because the certificate issued by the Joint Secretary at the behest of respondents no.1 and 2 was the one which shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.03.1957. 11. The second aspect of the matter is that there is visible overwriting in the date of birth column recorded in the second service book. Tampering is visible both in figures as well as in words. In words, there is overwriting of forty and in figures in 1947. It is visible that the handwriting differs both in words and figures men­tioned in the certificate from the one in which other columns have been filled. 12. From the aforesaid discussion, it clearly emerges that entry recorded in the first service book clearly shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.03.1957 as per the school leaving certificate. The petitioner has correctly given her date of birth as 04.03.1957 at the time of her first appointment. Her positive case is that entry in the service book recorded in the year 1985 was shown as 04.03.1957 which has been tampered by the office of respondent no.5 as 04.03.1947. It is also admitted that the service book remained in custody of respondent no.5. Her positive case is that entry in the service book recorded in the year 1985 was shown as 04.03.1957 which has been tampered by the office of respondent no.5 as 04.03.1947. It is also admitted that the service book remained in custody of respondent no.5. It per se emerges that the petitioner was not seeking correction of her date of birth but questioning the date of birth recorded in the 2nd service book which according to her was tampered. It was not a case where the date of birth recorded at the time of first appointment was sought to be changed but a case where date of birth of the petitioner was tampered and changed from 04.03.1957 to 04.03.1947, as such, duty was caste upon the respondents to effect necessary correction after adopting due process of law. The rejection of the petitioner's case on the ground that she has sought correction beyond the period of 5 years, cannot be accepted. It is not a case of correction of entry recorded at the time of entry inlo service but a case where the first entry was changed/tampered which was sought to be corrected. The option left with the respondents after it was detected by the petitioner that her date of birth has been changed from 1957 to 1947 by the office of respondent no.5 as the same remained in his custody to hold an enquiry. It also assumes significance that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the first service book was based upon the certificate issued by the Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School Kothi Bagh, Srinagar. It was confirmed by the Joint Secretary (Verification), J&K State Board of School Education on the request made by respondents 1 and 2. There is nothing on record to support the date of birth recorded in the 2nd service book as 04.03.1947 which also makes mention that the date of birth was recorded as per the certificate issued by the Govt. Higher Secondary School (Girls), Srinagar. No such certificate showing the date of birth as 04.03.1947 was available with the BOSE. 13. As already stated above, the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the school leaving certificate is 04.03.1957 which itself shows that intentionally some tampering has been made by the office of respondent no.5 for which respondent no.2 is required to hold an inquiry in the matter. 14. 13. As already stated above, the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the school leaving certificate is 04.03.1957 which itself shows that intentionally some tampering has been made by the office of respondent no.5 for which respondent no.2 is required to hold an inquiry in the matter. 14. The date of birth of the petitioner has been altered from 04.03.1957 to 04.03.1947 without notice to her. No opportunity has been given to her. The representation has been disposed of by respondent no.2 casually without going in to the question as to how the date of birth of the petitioner was changed from 04.03.1957 to 04.03.1947. Admittedly, matriculation certificate issued by the Board certified the date of birth of the petitioner as 04.03.1957. 15. I am fortified my view with the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981SC1481 entitled Sarjoo Prasad, Appellant v. The General Manager and another, Respondents, wherein it is held as under:- "Constitution of India, Art. 226- Date of birth of employee altered by employer after accepting it- Employee not given opportunity of hearing-Order correcting birth date and retiring employee on that basis is liable to be set aside in view of principles of natural justice." 16. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected without taking into consideration the fact that her date of birth recorded in the first service book, i.e. 04.03.1957 was supported by school leaving certificate and the certificate issued by the Joint Secretary (Verification). Contrary to that there was no supportive evidence to support the contention of the respondents that the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.03.1947. In the face of this evidence, there was no occasion for the respondents to reject the plea of the petitioner for correction of date of birth wrongly recorded as 04.03.1947. The contention of the petitioner assumes significance that the dale of birth recorded as 04.03.1947 was, in fact, done by the office of respondent no.5 by tampering the same. 17. As already discussed herein supra, it was not a case of correction of dale of birth recorded at the time of entry into service but a case of tampering of date of birth from 04.03.1957 to 04.03.1947. 17. As already discussed herein supra, it was not a case of correction of dale of birth recorded at the time of entry into service but a case of tampering of date of birth from 04.03.1957 to 04.03.1947. more particularly, when there is no supportive evidence to confirm that the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.03.1947.The respon­dents have, without examining this aspect of the matter, rejected the claim of the petitioner arbitrarily. 18. View thus, I allow this writ petition and set aside order dated 02.03.2005 issued by respondent no.2 and direct the respondents to immediately re-instate the petitioner into service with effect from the date she has been retired with all consequential/service benefits and superannuate her by taking her date of birth as 04.03.1957. 19. Disposed of along with connected CMP(s). 20. Registry to handover the record to the concerned quarter against proper receipt.