Judgment : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.5.2011 retiring the petitioner from service by treating his date of birth to be 12.5.1951. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Messenger on 24.2.1971, IRV, Chennai in Food Corporation of India and posted at the Godowns of FCI at Thiruvallur. 3. The petitioner produced his Birth Certificate issued vide Registration No. 727 dated 15.5.1952, at the time of appointment along with original transfer certificate in proof of his date of birth as 12.5.1952. His date of birth was noted as 12.5.1952. 4. The petitioner was redesignated as Watchman and declared to have completed the probation in the post of Watchman on the Afternoon of 23.2.1972. 5. The case of the petitioner is that at the later stage without the knowledge of the petitioner, the date of birth was changed to 12.5.1951 instead of 12.5.1952. It was only in the year 1996, that the fact about the change of date of birth was brought to his notice when he was directed to produce documentary proof in support of his date of birth. The petitioner submitted the birth certificate in Original, showing his date of birth to be 12.5.1952. 6. The case of the petitioner is that, when seniority list was circulated on 6.6.2002, his date of birth was wrongly shown. The petitioner filed representation against wrong recording of his date of birth. It was also pointed out that the date of birth has been altered unilaterally after 5 years of service without his consent. 7. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted repeated representations for carrying out the correction in the date of birth, in the service record which was wrongly altered. 8. The allegations of the petitioner are prima facie, correct as there is over-writing in the Service Register, where the year 1952 has been altered to 1951. In support of the date of birth, the petitioner has placed on record the original date of birth issued by the Corporation of Chennai is maintained under Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 9. The Certificate issued under Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is per se admissible in evidence. 10. 9. The Certificate issued under Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 is per se admissible in evidence. 10. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent on the ground that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 12.5.1951. The allegation of the petitioner that he supplied the original birth certificate and transfer certificate has bean denied. The stand of the respondent is as per the service record the date of birth of the petitioner is 12.5.1951 and not 12.5.1952. 11. However, no explanation is forthcoming about the overwriting in the Service Register. The stand taken in defense is, that the petitioner did not approach the Civil Court since 1996 for correction of date of birth, therefore, is not competent to invoke the writ jurisdiction at this stage. 12. The stand is also that the petitioner has retired from service. 13. As already observed, the main defense of the respondent is that the petitioner, has not taken steps at the appropriate time to get his date of birth changed as per his birth certificate. 14. On consideration, I find that thin writ deserves to succeed. It is not the case where the petitioner is seeking change in date of birth, but is objecting to the alteration made in the date of birth which was originally recorded as 12.5.1952 and subsequently, altered to 12.5.1951. 15. The stand of the respondents, that the petitioner has not taken steps a the appropriate stage, is totally misconceived in view of proved facts that the petitioner submitted the date of birth certificate and also made representations. It is not denied that the respondents have not taken any decision on the representations filed by the petitioner either by rejecting or accepting the representations, which could have given the cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the order at appropriate stage. 16. The respondents cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own wrong in not deciding the representation, which was supported by the valid and admissible document i.e., the original date of birth issued under Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 17. 16. The respondents cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own wrong in not deciding the representation, which was supported by the valid and admissible document i.e., the original date of birth issued under Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 17. In view of the positive proof of the date of birth, which is per se admissible in evidence, the action of the respondent in altering the date of birth without issuing notice to the petitioner, and thereafter, not considering the representation of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law, being on the face of it arbitrary exercise of power nor can the order of respondent in retiring the petitioner by taking his date of birth as 1951 can be sustained in law. The respondent have failed to disclose in the counter, as to what material was available with the respondent to change the date of birth which was originally recorded as 12.5.1952, as is apparent from a bare look of the Service Book, a copy of which has been placed on record. 18. The action of the respondent in altering the date of birth, and retiring the petitioner before attaining the age of superannuation on the face of it is arbitrary which amounts to colorable exercise of power, which cannot be sustained in law, being violative to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service by treating his date of birth to be 12.5.1952, with all consequential benefits. 20. No costs.